What is the with the German guys? If he can actually understand it, it's not very effective.
I think everybody understands each other. I just don't understand why I was called out 8-) But then the fellow does think himself quite the item...obviously.
I'm shot to hell with spoilers, too...but I'm also glad to see that many people, whose opinions I respect, tend to part with the New Conventional WisdomTM... :007)
This two-week advantage, as I'd figured, is being pressed in some quarters. C'est la guerre|)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
What is the with the German guys? If he can actually understand it, it's not very effective.
I think everybody understands each other. I just don't understand why I was called out 8-) But then the fellow does think himself quite the item...obviously. |)
?:) I don't understand this. In German, Napoleon told Loeff his fly was open. I said that his eyes must be good to see that from London. Just larking around, and I now think I've put my size 12s into something...
I don't know about anyone else here in the states, but this waiting 2 weeks after the UK has seen it, has been really excruciating...to say the least!
It's a bit of a pain here too (although much less) in that there's loads of anti-piracy gubbins- QoS 'not filming' posters, a trail before the film with Danny imploring us not to pirate the film etc.
I think it was more of a move towards a traditional Bond film, so if CR was too different for you you might enjoy QoS more.
I didn't realise it hadn't come out in the US yet... and I'd just like to take a moment to gloat about that!
Sorry, but you guys get every other film first, and Bond is supposed to be British!
Is #23 going to be a sequel to QoS in the same way as it was for CR? Because I wish they'd stop doing that, there is no need! Bond films have never been chronological and have been successful for 40 years... why change it?
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and everyone dies.
Hard to say, Jedi Master. After all, it may be 3 years until the next one, but if that continues straight after again, well, Mr White is gonna look quite old. The reason they do this, however, is to avoid having to start from scratch with every new film in terms of plot etc. And if it's a story it's like Lord of the Rings, you sort of have to keep going to find out how it's gonna end, I guess.
I'm happy for the Quantum organisation to be taken through to B23. It makes sense and Jesper C, while undoubtedly more craggy in 3 years, will still be a malevolent presence.
There has been a lot of talk about the Virgin Atlantic First Class scene, but little mention of two rather nauseating details about this scene:
- Forget Bond's ability to take 6 Martinis. He must be sober not to have punched the lights out of that smug irritating Virgin steward.
- I'm sorry, they omit to include much in the way of scene-setting during QoS for those unfortunates not to have watched CR, yet they again must define the ingredients of a Vesper. Why? Pointless.
This last point will irritate me in years to come just as much as the double-take pigeon. In fact, I secretly hope that this Virgin steward will reappear in B23 as some kind of homage to Sheriff JW Pepper.
- I'm sorry, they omit to include much in the way of scene-setting during QoS for those unfortunates not to have watched CR, yet they again must define the ingredients of a Vesper. Why? Pointless.
Well, we didn't know it was a Vesper until the barman read it out. We don't have to be told what the name of the drink is, but we presume that Mathis does and notes the significance.
Yeh I thought the point of that drink bit was that Mathis asked if Bond was thinking about Vesper, to which he said no. So he couldn't very well then say,
'oh this drink? I call it a Vesper'
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and everyone dies.
I thought he'd had that many that he couldn't remember what he'd asked for. I wonder if there's a deleted scene with Craig pouring his heart out to the barman.
It's kind of a bizarre statement to make since no one was certain about Craig until he actually 'became' Bond. And I'm sure there are many on these boards who would take unction with that claim.
It's kind of a bizarre statement to make since no one was certain about Craig until he actually 'became' Bond. And I'm sure there are many on these boards who would take unction with that claim.
Let them. What would be the point of DC re-establishing Bond all the way to the one we are all familiar with, only for someone else to then play him?
It's kind of a bizarre statement to make since no one was certain about Craig until he actually 'became' Bond. And I'm sure there are many on these boards who would take unction with that claim.
Let them. What would be the point of DC re-establishing Bond all the way to the one we are all familiar with, only for someone else to then play him?
Right here to take unction darenhat) )
I don't think DC re-established Bond at all. I think he is just playing a character I don't like and as far away from the Bond I have always loved as possible. I think he is one like all the other Bond actors, nothing more than that. He has his version of Bond that one might like or not like, but he isn't re-establishing anything. Whoever comes next will have their own version. No one is irreplaceable, least of all Craig as far as I'm concerned.
The only one who can claim "trademark" on Bond is Sir Sean, and that's because he was the first one, so HE is the only one who established the character. Craig is just playing his own version of the character (or better, the writers' version), not re-establishing anything. And I think the next Bond will be completely different from his, back to more traditional elements, and that'll happen once the revenue is not very interesting anymore. Just the normal way business always goes. Back and forth with different elements.
If they replace him, nobody is gonna play "his" version of the character. They'll have someone else playing Bond in a different way, plain and simple. And surely they could replace him even tomorrow if they wanted to. Babs doesn't want to, that's the only point. He is absolutely replaceable like everyone else, she just doesn't want to replace him and she's confusing that with the fact there's nobody around who could replace Craig. I could make a list of five in as many seconds. )
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
It's kind of a bizarre statement to make since no one was certain about Craig until he actually 'became' Bond. And I'm sure there are many on these boards who would take unction with that claim.
Let them. What would be the point of DC re-establishing Bond all the way to the one we are all familiar with, only for someone else to then play him?
I don't think DC re-established Bond at all. I think he is just playing a character I don't like and as far away from the Bond I have always loved as possible. I think he is one like all the other Bond actors, nothing more than that. He has his version of Bond that one might like or not like, but he isn't re-establishing anything. Whoever comes next will have their own version. No one is irreplaceable, least of all Craig as far as I'm concerned.
The only one who can claim "trademark" on Bond is Sir Sean, and that's because he was the first one, so HE is the only one who established the character. Craig is just playing his own version of the character (or better, the writers' version), not re-establishing anything. And I think the next Bond will be completely different from his, back to more traditional elements, and that'll happen once the revenue is not very interesting anymore. Just the normal way business always goes. Back and forth with different elements.
If they replace him, nobody is gonna play "his" version of the character. They'll have someone else playing Bond in a different way, plain and simple. And surely they could replace him even tomorrow if they wanted to. Babs doesn't want to, that's the only point. He is absolutely replaceable like everyone else, she just doesn't want to replace him and she's confusing that with the fact there's nobody around who could replace Craig. I could make a list of five in as many seconds. )
I stress DC has re-established the character of Bond via a reboot to the franchise, which is what Casino Royale was. I feel there would be little point in an actor doing that and only sticking around for two films only to be then replaced.
I'm sorry you don't like his portrayal of Bond, but many of us do. Those who have read Fleming's books and then cringed through atrocities like DAD are getting what we want at last.
I stress DC has re-established the character of Bond via a reboot to the franchise, which is what Casino Royale was. I feel there would be little point in an actor doing that and only sticking around for two films only to be then replaced.
I'm sorry you don't like his portrayal of Bond, but many of us do. Those who have read Fleming's books and then cringed through atrocities like DAD are getting what we want at last.
LOL I stress he hasn't re-established it, he's just doing movies the way it's convenient for producers in this moment because it brings them money. And I didn't like DAD. And I have read the Fleming books. I just don't happen to share your view of the character. I find Craig's Bond not adherent to Fleming's portrayal from many points of view, and particularly because with Craig I only see a random badass on screen instead of James Bond. Fleming never wrote Bond as only and merely a cold-blooded killer. That's what a random spy is. And that's what I see Craig portraying. Instead of James Bond, that is a much more complex and nuanced character, and has specific characteristics in Fleming's novels that I don't see on screen when Craig portrays him.
It isn't a fact that Craig's Bond is closer to Fleming.. it is closer to the perception of some, and much more distant from the perception of others. As always, it's just a matter of personal preference and perception.
) ) NP sorry, I don't mean to impose my presence!! I will stop. )
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
I stress DC has re-established the character of Bond via a reboot to the franchise, which is what Casino Royale was. I feel there would be little point in an actor doing that and only sticking around for two films only to be then replaced.
I'm sorry you don't like his portrayal of Bond, but many of us do. Those who have read Fleming's books and then cringed through atrocities like DAD are getting what we want at last.
LOL I stress he hasn't re-established it, he's just doing movies the way it's convenient for producers in this moment because it brings them money.
LOL etc. Sir Sean himself pretty much agrees that he has as he said that he sees much of his portrayal in Craig, as do others, so I'd rather tend to agree that he has reestablished Bond as a strong alpha male with a sexy edge. It's Craig's spin on the character of course, but it evokes the feel of Connery without the smugness that he shows in FRWL; but instead a sort of hotheaded arrogance. Works for me. He's kept the suave, the classiness, brought back the sexy and a whole lot of actual, proper cool.
Could not agree more. My misses describes Brozza and Moore as handsome, whereas Connery and Craig are both sexy. I can see what se means by handsome, but sexy is not something I can see that other females do (maybe because I'm not that way inclined...:D)
Either way, Bond is finally cool again, and no longer cheesy,
Saw Craig in action yesterday; he makes a really cool Bond ! Tough when he needs to be, good in emotionally loaded scenes, an a dry sense of humour. Perfect man for the job.
The movie itself pleased me a lot; nothing to be ashamed about compared to other action films. As a matter of fact: it scores higher than most recent action films.
Either way, Bond is finally cool again, and no longer cheesy
But Connery managed to be cool and cheesy!
That's one thing. Also, I don't find Craig "cool" at all. Badass is one thing, cool is another for me. And I didn't find Brosnan cheesy at all. I found him sexy, handsome and a cold blooded killer when he needed to do his job. Also, I find Brosnan much, MUCH sexier than Craig. Craig to me is as sexy as a potato. So again, not a fact, just a matter of perception.
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Either way, Bond is finally cool again, and no longer cheesy
But Connery managed to be cool and cheesy!
That's one thing. Also, I don't find Craig "cool" at all. Badass is one thing, cool is another for me. And I didn't find Brosnan cheesy at all. I found him sexy, handsome and a cold blooded killer when he needed to do his job. Also, I find Brosnan much, MUCH sexier than Craig. Craig to me is as sexy as a potato. So again, not a fact, just a matter of perception.
Wow!! You are probably the first girl I've come across in recent memory that doesn't fancy Craig....
Craig to me is as sexy as a potato. So again, not a fact, just a matter of perception.
) ) )
Alessandra, you and my wife sound like two peas in a pod.
) ) ) Good thing she met you first then, or you would'be been stuck with me? ) )
You should introduce us, so we can share our grief over Craig )
glidrose, I find surprising what you're telling me :O NONE of my female friends fancy Craig in any way... and I mean none. Italian, American, French, Spanish, Argentine..(I have a lot of foreign friends) not one of them finds him remotely attractive. Thinking about it, the men don't fancy him either ) )
But hey, it is merely taste. And absolutely nothing personal against Craig, poor man. We can't all like the same type of man. THANK GOD! I have enough women to fight off for Pierce, Henry (Cavill), Hugh (Jackman), Taylor (Kitsch).. damn the list is too long. ) )
"Are we on coms?" (if you don't know where this is from... you've missed some really good stuff! )
Purvis and Wade can go, but I really want them to keep Haggis (the decision to bring him on board was, IMO, the best thing that Wilson & Broccoli did in this whole re-boot). I haven't seen QoS yet, so I can't comment on his work in that, but the dialogue in CR was very well done.
Haggis and Arnold are 2 people that the producers should try to keep for as long as possible.
Craig to me is as sexy as a potato. So again, not a fact, just a matter of perception.
) ) )
Alessandra, you and my wife sound like two peas in a pod.
) ) ) Good thing she met you first then, or you would'be been stuck with me? ) )
You should introduce us, so we can share our grief over Craig )
glidrose, I find surprising what you're telling me :O NONE of my female friends fancy Craig in any way... and I mean none. Italian, American, French, Spanish, Argentine..(I have a lot of foreign friends) not one of them finds him remotely attractive. Thinking about it, the men don't fancy him either ) )
But hey, it is merely taste. And absolutely nothing personal against Craig, poor man. We can't all like the same type of man. THANK GOD! I have enough women to fight off for Pierce, Henry (Cavill), Hugh (Jackman), Taylor (Kitsch).. damn the list is too long. ) )
Bizarre, as my wife is Iranian and adores him, and she has friends who are either Norwegian or British, who all fancy him too (I'm sick of them all drooling over him whenever they get together.....:))) My males friends other halves, just about all of who I can think of, fancy him too. And recently here in the UK there has been plenty of female TV presenters and DJ's gushing over him when interviewing and reviewing the film. On the Jonathan Ross show, he is usually introduced as the `sexiest man alive' by Ross.
Refreshing to hear there are women out there who don't fancy him though.
Comments
I think everybody understands each other. I just don't understand why I was called out 8-) But then the fellow does think himself quite the item...obviously.
I'm shot to hell with spoilers, too...but I'm also glad to see that many people, whose opinions I respect, tend to part with the New Conventional WisdomTM... :007)
This two-week advantage, as I'd figured, is being pressed in some quarters. C'est la guerre
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
?:) I don't understand this. In German, Napoleon told Loeff his fly was open. I said that his eyes must be good to see that from London. Just larking around, and I now think I've put my size 12s into something...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
It's a bit of a pain here too (although much less) in that there's loads of anti-piracy gubbins- QoS 'not filming' posters, a trail before the film with Danny imploring us not to pirate the film etc.
I think it was more of a move towards a traditional Bond film, so if CR was too different for you you might enjoy QoS more.
Sorry, but you guys get every other film first, and Bond is supposed to be British!
Is #23 going to be a sequel to QoS in the same way as it was for CR? Because I wish they'd stop doing that, there is no need! Bond films have never been chronological and have been successful for 40 years... why change it?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
There has been a lot of talk about the Virgin Atlantic First Class scene, but little mention of two rather nauseating details about this scene:
- Forget Bond's ability to take 6 Martinis. He must be sober not to have punched the lights out of that smug irritating Virgin steward.
- I'm sorry, they omit to include much in the way of scene-setting during QoS for those unfortunates not to have watched CR, yet they again must define the ingredients of a Vesper. Why? Pointless.
This last point will irritate me in years to come just as much as the double-take pigeon. In fact, I secretly hope that this Virgin steward will reappear in B23 as some kind of homage to Sheriff JW Pepper.
Well, we didn't know it was a Vesper until the barman read it out. We don't have to be told what the name of the drink is, but we presume that Mathis does and notes the significance.
'oh this drink? I call it a Vesper'
The interview also seems to indicate Purvis, Wade and Haggis might not be involved.
http://commanderbond.net/article/5720
{[] Bout time they ditched Purvis and Wade.
Think she means the best of all the other potential Bonds out there, as in nobody could replace him just now.
Let them. What would be the point of DC re-establishing Bond all the way to the one we are all familiar with, only for someone else to then play him?
Right here to take unction darenhat
I don't think DC re-established Bond at all. I think he is just playing a character I don't like and as far away from the Bond I have always loved as possible. I think he is one like all the other Bond actors, nothing more than that. He has his version of Bond that one might like or not like, but he isn't re-establishing anything. Whoever comes next will have their own version. No one is irreplaceable, least of all Craig as far as I'm concerned.
The only one who can claim "trademark" on Bond is Sir Sean, and that's because he was the first one, so HE is the only one who established the character. Craig is just playing his own version of the character (or better, the writers' version), not re-establishing anything. And I think the next Bond will be completely different from his, back to more traditional elements, and that'll happen once the revenue is not very interesting anymore. Just the normal way business always goes. Back and forth with different elements.
If they replace him, nobody is gonna play "his" version of the character. They'll have someone else playing Bond in a different way, plain and simple. And surely they could replace him even tomorrow if they wanted to. Babs doesn't want to, that's the only point. He is absolutely replaceable like everyone else, she just doesn't want to replace him and she's confusing that with the fact there's nobody around who could replace Craig. I could make a list of five in as many seconds.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I stress DC has re-established the character of Bond via a reboot to the franchise, which is what Casino Royale was. I feel there would be little point in an actor doing that and only sticking around for two films only to be then replaced.
I'm sorry you don't like his portrayal of Bond, but many of us do. Those who have read Fleming's books and then cringed through atrocities like DAD are getting what we want at last.
LOL I stress he hasn't re-established it, he's just doing movies the way it's convenient for producers in this moment because it brings them money. And I didn't like DAD. And I have read the Fleming books. I just don't happen to share your view of the character. I find Craig's Bond not adherent to Fleming's portrayal from many points of view, and particularly because with Craig I only see a random badass on screen instead of James Bond. Fleming never wrote Bond as only and merely a cold-blooded killer. That's what a random spy is. And that's what I see Craig portraying. Instead of James Bond, that is a much more complex and nuanced character, and has specific characteristics in Fleming's novels that I don't see on screen when Craig portrays him.
It isn't a fact that Craig's Bond is closer to Fleming.. it is closer to the perception of some, and much more distant from the perception of others. As always, it's just a matter of personal preference and perception.
LOL
Either way, Bond is finally cool again, and no longer cheesy,
The movie itself pleased me a lot; nothing to be ashamed about compared to other action films. As a matter of fact: it scores higher than most recent action films.
But Connery managed to be cool and cheesy!
That's one thing. Also, I don't find Craig "cool" at all. Badass is one thing, cool is another for me. And I didn't find Brosnan cheesy at all. I found him sexy, handsome and a cold blooded killer when he needed to do his job. Also, I find Brosnan much, MUCH sexier than Craig. Craig to me is as sexy as a potato. So again, not a fact, just a matter of perception.
Wow!!
Alessandra, you and my wife sound like two peas in a pod.
You should introduce us, so we can share our grief over Craig
glidrose, I find surprising what you're telling me :O NONE of my female friends fancy Craig in any way... and I mean none. Italian, American, French, Spanish, Argentine..(I have a lot of foreign friends) not one of them finds him remotely attractive. Thinking about it, the men don't fancy him either
But hey, it is merely taste. And absolutely nothing personal against Craig, poor man. We can't all like the same type of man. THANK GOD! I have enough women to fight off for Pierce, Henry (Cavill), Hugh (Jackman), Taylor (Kitsch).. damn the list is too long.
Purvis and Wade can go, but I really want them to keep Haggis (the decision to bring him on board was, IMO, the best thing that Wilson & Broccoli did in this whole re-boot). I haven't seen QoS yet, so I can't comment on his work in that, but the dialogue in CR was very well done.
Haggis and Arnold are 2 people that the producers should try to keep for as long as possible.
Bizarre, as my wife is Iranian and adores him, and she has friends who are either Norwegian or British, who all fancy him too (I'm sick of them all drooling over him whenever they get together.....:))) My males friends other halves, just about all of who I can think of, fancy him too. And recently here in the UK there has been plenty of female TV presenters and DJ's gushing over him when interviewing and reviewing the film. On the Jonathan Ross show, he is usually introduced as the `sexiest man alive' by Ross.
Refreshing to hear there are women out there who don't fancy him though.