Jump to content

General Movie (Film for snobs) News Thread


CaptainCharisma

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members

Where has this perception come from that Daniel Craig's Bond films have been more action-based than the predecessors. Since On Her Majesty's Secret Service, they have ALL been "actiony".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

Where has this perception come from that Daniel Craig's Bond films have been more action-based than the predecessors. Since On Her Majesty's Secret Service, they have ALL been "actiony".

I think they're viewed as being grittier than the Brosnan era of Bond films. I'd still say the darkest Bond film is License To Kill. Barring that strange scene involving ninjas for no reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
6 minutes ago, The Maestro said:

I think they're viewed as being grittier than the Brosnan era of Bond films. I'd still say the darkest Bond film is License To Kill. Barring that strange scene involving ninjas for no reason.

Oh, they are grittier, mainly because they're trying to be Jason Bourne films, But the action quota is roughly the same as it's always been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Awards Moderator
3 hours ago, WyattSheepMask said:

I’ve only seen about 5 Bond so far from a Bond fan, which I know makes me a complete philistine, but is ever addressed how Bond never ages, as he’s clearly been around since the 60s and been different people. I always liked the idea that ‘007, James Bond’ was a code name that could’ve given to different agents. There is no James Bond the person, he just exists as an alias 

I always accepted this until Skyfall, when

 

they go to Bond’s childhood home and his parents were Bonds and he’s always been James, and they meet the guy who’s looked after the place for decades and remembers James as a kid, meaning he’s been the only one the whole time.

Now, the theory can still work: either his alias is EXCEPTIONALLY detailed, or in a phenomenal coincidence he just happened to ALSO be called James Bond in real life. But Skyfall doesn’t half put a spanner in the ‘codename’ works.

I’m sure I read that the caretaker guy was intended to be Sean Connery at one point too, which would have utterly confused the whole thing!

Let’s get Steven Moffat in and have it revealed 007 is actually a Time Lord.

Edited by HarmonicGenerator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
2 minutes ago, Loki said:

Which is why I hated Skyfall.  The last few Bonds have been hugely over written.

There's also the fact that as soon as you start down this path of delving into Bond's background, it has a limited shelf life and will hit a wall at some point. I think that's why Craig is being like this now. They've run out of ideas as regards how they keep progressing this, so let's kill him.

It was a franchise that existed successfully for over 40 years without ever having to detail Bond's background. There was no need to muddy the waters as they have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also a problem that Marvel are now hitting, as their first generation of actors get too old or want to move on.  Putting everything into a continuity has paid dividends in some respects but what happens to Iron Man when Downey is done - recast?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

It seems to me that Marvel has become almost impenetrable for anyone wanting to enter the Universe at this point. My daughter expressed interest in seeing Logan until I explained she'd have to watch all this other stuff first and she sacked that off.

It's a bit self-defeating in a way. Surely Marvel understand that there are people out there who may only be interested in a particular character or comic book and that when they make a film about that, it should be just about that or those character(s). They just seem like such hard work and there's so many of them. Plus there are TV series as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
2 hours ago, Devon Malcolm said:

It seems to me that Marvel has become almost impenetrable for anyone wanting to enter the Universe at this point. My daughter expressed interest in seeing Logan until I explained she'd have to watch all this other stuff first and she sacked that off. 

It's a bit self-defeating in a way. Surely Marvel understand that there are people out there who may only be interested in a particular character or comic book and that when they make a film about that, it should be just about that or those character(s). They just seem like such hard work and there's so many of them. Plus there are TV series as well?

A lot of them can be watched completely standalone, particularly if you have an awareness of the characters. Logan is one of those. Just admit that you said that so you wouldn't have to watch a superhero movie with her!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Just now, Chest Rockwell said:

A lot of them can be watched completely standalone, particularly if you have an awareness of the characters. Logan is one of those. Just admit that you said that so you wouldn't have to watch a superhero movie with her!

Not at all, I've put my hatred of a lot of things aside so she could get to see them! But this was a 15 anyway so she couldn't go to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

In what could be wonderful news they have announced that the remake of Big Trouble in Little China isn't a remake but a continuation/ sequel which could lead to a Jack Burton / The Rock team up. Goofy Action Kurt Russell in a blockbuster in the year 2019. It's the stuff of dreams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
1 hour ago, Chest Rockwell said:

A lot of them can be watched completely standalone, particularly if you have an awareness of the characters. Logan is one of those. Just admit that you said that so you wouldn't have to watch a superhero movie with her!

Logan is definitely a film you can watch standalone. I haven't watched an X-Men film since X2 (which I thought was shit), and I didn't watch any of the 2 or 3 previous Wolverine films either, and got on fine with Logan. I thought it was a really good film, and if you didn't know any better you can get away with watching it without knowing it was a superhero movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...