Upcoming Movie Discussion

[metadigital]

That's it! The number three is a bad omen!

[Kelverin]

That's alright Metadigital I am used to people not understanding me and having to explain myself twice.

 

Bond films set the mark (invented) for the modern action film, you might believe this is just my opinion, do your homework and you will see. This series has lasted 45 years, 45 YEARS do you think it would go in the trash can? After the highest grossing film ever? Now who is not making sense. The series did this type of change after its last over the top mega hit Moonraker (highest grossing film at the time) Bourne films were not around then so why the change? It's funny but when ever the series falters they go back to using Fleming, I can only imagine how great the series would be if they never stopped using his material.

 

However all the Fleming material is gone, so we shall see what happens.

 

"The Bourne franchise was the best thing that ever happened to the Bond franchise" Wonder how the series lasted for 40 years up to that point

 

"Schwarzenegger's better rendition of Bond than Bond in True Lies" So much for your credibility

[Kor Qel Droma]

Basically, what I'm saying is, if you found any of these movies hard to follow and complain with witty phrases like "having to keep a scorecard", you are complete and utter moron.

 

Well hey, TN, not everyone is a rocket scientist like yourself. Your moron quote only proves that the moron is you. Go dingo yourself.

Edited May 26, 2007 by Kor Qel Droma

[Calax]

just saw shrek three... Felt like the entire movie was just a set up for sets of one liners. the story was similar to Chronicles of Riddick in that it was a bit on the short side (wheeee three plot points total!)

[metadigital]

That's alright Metadigital I am used to people not understanding me and having to explain myself twice.

 

Bond films set the mark (invented) for the modern action film, you might believe this is just my opinion, do your homework and you will see. This series has lasted 45 years, 45 YEARS do you think it would go in the trash can? After the highest grossing film ever? Now who is not making sense. The series did this type of change after its last over the top mega hit Moonraker (highest grossing film at the time) Bourne films were not around then so why the change? It's funny but when ever the series falters they go back to using Fleming, I can only imagine how great the series would be if they never stopped using his material.

 

However all the Fleming material is gone, so we shall see what happens.

 

"The Bourne franchise was the best thing that ever happened to the Bond franchise" Wonder how the series lasted for 40 years up to that point

 

"Schwarzenegger's better rendition of Bond than Bond in True Lies" So much for your credibility

1. Bond films did not invent the action film.
   
2. I never said it would be trashed. I said it would disappear up its own arse, which I clarified later in my response to the analogy of a fetish. I.e., the franchise would continue to appeal to its loyal but ever-reducing fanatical fan-base, until there was so few left of them that the films didn't make enough return to warrant making another. OR the producers could adapt and change the franchise.
   
3. If you are suggesting that Moonraker was a good film (in ANY sense of the word) then you have no credibility. Laser guns? Moore's tenure as Bond is only barely acceptable: the audience must first accept the implied parody, of the earlier films, that the Moore films had become.
   
4. Fleming's material reflects the English post-war society, i.e. miserable (food rationing, begun in 1940, didn't end in Britain until 1954); his escapist writing is overburdened with references to food of all sorts, as well as rare wines, not to mention large stacks of cash. Don't forget Fleming also came up with the silly names for all the women, too. It is not hard to draw a conclusion about what Fleming was fixated on.
   As for "going back to using Fleming", I think if YOU do some homework you will see that the best Bond films were the one's that used as little as possible of Fleming's original text (this happened more and more towards his death, after which it was a lot easier).
   
5. The Bond franchise "lasted for 40 years up to that point" because it started with a fantastic actor (Sean Connery, STILL voted in the top couple of "World's Sexiest Men", it's no exaggeration to say that women want him and men (who watch Bond films) want to be him), followed by years of no competition.
   
6. Yeah, A View to a Kill and Octopussy are definitely showing how the Bond franchise is soooooooooooo much better than the Bourne franchise.
   

Do you know anything about film at all, or just what you read on the Bond fansite?

[Blarghagh]

Basically, what I'm saying is, if you found any of these movies hard to follow and complain with witty phrases like "having to keep a scorecard", you are complete and utter moron.

 

Well hey, TN, not everyone is a rocket scientist like yourself. Your moron quote only proves that the moron is you. Go dingo yourself.

 

Look, man, I'm not saying I'm a rocket scientist. I have problems following some movies myself. Hell, I've watched Donnie Darko four times and I still haven't a clue what it's about. I'm just saying, this movie was as formulaic as they come, and not being able to follow it is the same thing as not being able to follow, say, Indiana Jones. It isn't even neccesary to give it your full attention, and it's still completely clear what's happening.

 

So, really, if you don't "get" Pirates 3, you're plainly a moron. There was a ten year old sitting behind me who was accurately predicting the entire movie, for chrissakes.

Edited May 27, 2007 by TrueNeutral

[Krookie]

Who's Chris?

[metadigital]

Dunno, but I hear he likes sake ...

[Kelverin]

Edited May 28, 2007 by Kelverin

[metadigital]

[Hell Kitty]

Here is my list:

 

1. Bourne films

2. Bond films

 

Undeniable proof that the Bourne series is better than the Bond series. Oh, and I watch a lot of movies so I know what I'm talking about.

Edited May 28, 2007 by Hell Kitty

[Blarghagh]

See, I watch a lot of movies as well and I have to say that only the first Bourne film was worth watching, but had a lack of tension and is easily Matt Damon's worst role. The second Bourne movie killed off the best thing from the first right at the start (Franka Potente's character) and then proceeded to try and be intense by shaking the camera even during exposition close-ups making it the most headache inducing film I have ever seen.

 

As for Bond films, they have their fair share of stinkers as well, but I'm pretty sure that Dr. No and Goldfinger rank way above the cinematic Bourne's. (I can't judge on the book versions, as I haven't read any of them. I am not a fan of spy novels.)

[SteveThaiBinh]

The second Bourne movie killed off the best thing from the first right at the start (Franka Potente's character)...

I agree completely. Their relationship was a huge part of the first movie, and finding out how it progressed in the second was what prompted me to watch it. That was a big disappointment when she was killed.

[Kelverin]

That's what I thought. Thanks for playing......

[Farbautisonn]

I liked Bourne alot. He is more "contemporary" and brutal than bond. But then again. If you read the novels Bond isn't the suave womanizer he is in the movies. He is the Bourne of his day albeit a bit more polished and worldly.

 

Personally I didn't like Craig. I think he has the on screen carisma and presence of roadkill. He comes across as a whiny, try-too-hard wannabe gimp. At least to me. Casting him as bond was a complete and utter disgrace. I somewhat liked the "back to basics" idea of "Casino Royale", I liked that the supertech invisible cars and super nerdy kit wasn't there. I would have liked to keep "Q" if only for the banter between the two, that we have come to expect from the bond movies. I liked that the movie was more brutal and gritty. I really liked Mads Mikkelsen as the Villan because he actually improved on Flemmings "le chiffre".

 

But having Craig as Bond is going to keep me from watching more bond movies in the theater. He simply blows too hard.

 

-Farb

[Kelverin]

I liked Bourne alot. He is more "contemporary" and brutal than bond.

See one of the problems I have with the Bourne films is Matt Damon. Sorry but I just can't suspend my believe and picture him as a bad ass no matter how good the stunts or special effects are.

[Farbautisonn]

I think he looks like a kid too, but... hey... I can't have Michael Wincott play every bad arse out there.

 

-Farb

[metadigital]

That's what I thought. Thanks for playing......

Buddy, just because you produce a list of your own opinionated garbage, doesn't make it authoritative. (Hell Kitty's response should have tipped you off, but then, judging by your slavish obsession with this franchise, I guess such subtleties are beyond you.)

 

As you seem to want me to detail what's wrong with your "argument", here are some of the more obvious, below.

[Kelverin]

You still haven

[Blarghagh]

You are right. It is not the longest running most successful franchise in the history of movies.

 

He is right, in fact. The Bond franchise is neither.

 

Originally appearing 1954, with 28 installments excluding the western remake, Godzilla smashes Bond's 21 films since 1962. As for most succesful movie series, whereas the Bond franchise has roughly grossed and impressive 4 billion, it can't even hope to come near the estimated 20 billion of Star Wars.

 

Who the hell is hellkity and his opinion means what to me? I wasn

Edited May 29, 2007 by TrueNeutral

[taks]

I liked Bourne alot. He is more "contemporary" and brutal than bond.

See one of the problems I have with the Bourne films is Matt Damon. Sorry but I just can't suspend my believe and picture him as a bad ass no matter how good the stunts or special effects are.

i've always found matt damon to be an excellent choice for such character types. real life "bad-asses" often have an unassuming look/presence about them, designed to deflect attention. i.e., nobody notices them. bond types were _obviously_ the spy/bad-ass types IMO.

 

besides that, i just think matt damon is a good lead actor.

 

taks

[Farbautisonn]

I think he suffers from the same problem that Leonardo dicaprio does. He looks like a kid. Grow a beard, and he STILL looks like some kid on the way to the prom. Any role where he is supposed to be "manly" or "tough" just falls through. He doesn't have the look of a roughneck (Michael Wincott), toughguy(Henry Rollins), or even the guy thats just "been there" (Jean Reno). Thats just my opinion though.

 

-Farb

[Blarghagh]

I agree. He fits roles like the one in the Ocean's Teen series much more, just as how Leonardo DiCaprio is more suited to roles like Catch Me If You Can.

[Oerwinde]

I think DiCaprio though has matured enough that he can actually look mature on screen. Examples: The Departed, Blood Diamond. He doesn't really look all that kiddish there like he did in say, Titanic, or even Gangs of New York.

 

When it comes to leads, I'm actually a fan of Heath Ledger. He's pretty versatile, both role-wise and look-wise. I mean watching The Bros. Grimm, you can hardly tell its him.

[Krookie]

I saw the preview for the new Harry Potter movie when I went to see Pirates 3.

 

It actually looked pretty cool. But even if it didn't, I'd still probably go see it.