Well I for One Hated QOS, thought it was terrible. Although
I thought CR was very Good, Caught it again on TV during the week
and thought it stood up well, Sure it's not in the old formula but I'd
rate it very Highly.
I think part of my disliking of QOS is because CR was so good, I was
expecting so much more., and it didn't deliver for me,( I know many
here on AJB think it was very good indeed )
I also agree there were many bad reviews of QOS. Although I have a different
view on Skyfall than you, as I think Eon will have taken on Board some of the
complaints from fans and reviewers and will provide something more of the
quality of CR.
As for the reboot. It's Done. we can't go back, all we can hope for is that they
will gradually re-introduce some loved characters ( mabey with a contemporary take )
MINOR SPOILER ALERT
At the moment I'm happier now after seeing the 2nd trailer with a bit of banter
between Q and Bond, mabey I'm in for another let down, but I'd rather be a bit
positive. Travel in hope and all that.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
QoS - crap script (DC and MF are not writers) and the editing was way too sporadic. wouldn't say its a terrble film though.
Q and Bond - you'll not be disappointed. from what i can gather its new, he's not des, but it'll be a grower, ie you might not like it at first but things may change the more you see of him.
what i'd really like to see is the same faces playing the characters so we can get a little familiar with them. if ben whishaw's outing as Q is a one off i'd be a little disappointed, unless he really is useless, but somehow i thnk i'm going to be moderately pleased with his role in skyfall.
This may sound arrogant, but I will make a sportsman bet that Eon will jettison the reboot within the next 10 years.
I'm not sure how you "jettison" a reboot. . .Skyfall is bringing Q back into the fold (admittedly, a very new interpretation of him) and there are still rumors that Moneypenny will be in the film, or even that Judi Dench's M will be cashiered out and a new M--perhaps even the original Sir Miles Messervy--will start calling the shots. The series has been rebooted: you can't put that genie back in the bottle.
Really--and this is not directed at you, Osris--there are a lot of people who have been moaning and groaning about the series since M became a woman. You hear the gripes that the series is now "politically correct" and has no real connection to the good old days of the series--whenever they were. I'm convinced that some people will not be happy until every film is set in the mid-1960s; that animated CGI versions of the younger Sean Connery, Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell, and Desmond Llewelyn be used to play their old parts; that John Barry's old scores be forever re-mixed; and that every sketch or doodle Ken Adam made be turned into sets for the films.
No problem. I, too, enjoy a good debate, and at least your comments are intelligent and thought-provoking. Best of all, you're a fellow Bond fan, so that's a plus! -{
"The positive reviews for CR wouldn’t have been that remarkable if the Brosnan films had been any good."
There you go again, assuming that the positive reviews were for reasons other than the fact that the reviewers thought Casino Royale was a good film. Just because you thought CR was "a mediocre Bond film" doesn't mean that the critics would have agreed with you if the Brosnan films weren't so bad. I think what bothers me and some others here is that you tone seems a bit condenscending. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it's not intentional, but it sure comes across that way.
It's not intentional. I'm just used to getting into debates, and I can sometimes go into "debate mode" without thinking about being tactful.
Really--and this is not directed at you, Osris--there are a lot of people who have been moaning and groaning about the series since M became a woman. You hear the gripes that the series is now "politically correct" and has no real connection to the good old days of the series--whenever they were. I'm convinced that some people will not be happy until every film is set in the mid-1960s; that animated CGI versions of the younger Sean Connery, Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell, and Desmond Llewelyn be used to play their old parts; that John Barry's old scores be forever re-mixed; and that every sketch or doodle Ken Adam made be turned into sets for the films.
sorry pal, but you said it was the storylines. and in the same post you were saying if EoN didn't revert back to pre brossa days they'd go out of business, ie if they keep on the way they are they'll go pop.
when it comes down to the cinematography, the set design and wardrobe, i'm afraid they're all 'era related', unless of course you're creating a film set in the past, which EoN haven't done ever.
the old bond films have that old style, classic look because they were made back in the time which we now consider 'classic'. I dare say in 50 year people might look back and consider CR old school and retro too.
times change, styles and fashion moves on and the bond films do this to in order to maintain up to date. we'll not be seeing bond in flares anytime soon (i hope).
When it comes to plot etc, EoN try and keep a little bit in touch with real life global situations, the cold war, oil crisis etc etc. ok so there's no more hollow volcanos, but does a modern day bond film need it? the takings of CR and QoS would suggest not.
I wish you wouldn’t keep addressing me as “pal”—it sounds awfully aggressive.
you what? you never seen a friend and said 'hello pal'? i think when people type things, the reader can interpret them in different ways. i'm not saying 'pal' as in 'welcome to the party pal', i'm just using it as a generic name for you.
i'll refrain from using 'pal' in case it offends you and refer to you as 'NTSC' instead.
I take your point about retro films styles. But it’s possible to make some homage’s to it as Goldeneye did.
ah so you must like the db5 in CR then? if you're a fan of homages you must be DAD's biggest fan )
This may sound arrogant, but I will make a sportsman bet that Eon will jettison the reboot within the next 10 years.
in 10 years time, the CR reboot will have become the norm and will have evolved past its original concept. that is, if they continue to develop the films that way, but i think a reboot is done, the franchise takes a different direction and then things evolve from there. 10 years later and its too late, its like saying when a kid walk for the first time 'you wait, 10 years time and he'll have forgot what legs are'.
Now that you’ve explained “pal” wasn’t being used aggressively, you can keep calling me it.
Well I for One Hated QOS, thought it was terrible. Although
I thought CR was very Good, Caught it again on TV during the week
and thought it stood up well, Sure it's not in the old formula but I'd
rate it very Highly.
I think part of my disliking of QOS is because CR was so good, I was
expecting so much more., and it didn't deliver for me,( I know many
here on AJB think it was very good indeed )
I also agree there were many bad reviews of QOS. Although I have a different
view on Skyfall than you, as I think Eon will have taken on Board some of the
complaints from fans and reviewers and will provide something more of the
quality of CR.
As for the reboot. It's Done. we can't go back, all we can hope for is that they
will gradually re-introduce some loved characters ( mabey with a contemporary take )
MINOR SPOILER ALERT
At the moment I'm happier now after seeing the 2nd trailer with a bit of banter
between Q and Bond, mabey I'm in for another let down, but I'd rather be a bit
positive. Travel in hope and all that.
Have you got a link for that trailer, you mention?
I wish you wouldn’t keep addressing me as “pal”—it sounds awfully aggressive.
you what? you never seen a friend and said 'hello pal'? i think when people type things, the reader can interpret them in different ways. i'm not saying 'pal' as in 'welcome to the party pal', i'm just using it as a generic name for you.
i'll refrain from using 'pal' in case it offends you and refer to you as 'NTSC' instead.
I take your point about retro films styles. But it’s possible to make some homage’s to it as Goldeneye did.
ah so you must like the db5 in CR then? if you're a fan of homages you must be DAD's biggest fan )
This may sound arrogant, but I will make a sportsman bet that Eon will jettison the reboot within the next 10 years.
in 10 years time, the CR reboot will have become the norm and will have evolved past its original concept. that is, if they continue to develop the films that way, but i think a reboot is done, the franchise takes a different direction and then things evolve from there. 10 years later and its too late, its like saying when a kid walk for the first time 'you wait, 10 years time and he'll have forgot what legs are'.
Now that you’ve explained “pal” wasn’t being used aggressively, you can keep calling me it.
cheers HAL, i mean, pal.
i think its a wise thing to always bear in mind that tone of voice and manerisms seldom translate through text alone.
This may sound arrogant, but I will make a sportsman bet that Eon will jettison the reboot within the next 10 years.
I'm not sure how you "jettison" a reboot. . .Skyfall is bringing Q back into the fold (admittedly, a very new interpretation of him) and there are still rumors that Moneypenny will be in the film, or even that Judi Dench's M will be cashiered out and a new M--perhaps even the original Sir Miles Messervy--will start calling the shots. The series has been rebooted: you can't put that genie back in the bottle.
Really--and this is not directed at you, Osris--there are a lot of people who have been moaning and groaning about the series since M became a woman. You hear the gripes that the series is now "politically correct" and has no real connection to the good old days of the series--whenever they were. I'm convinced that some people will not be happy until every film is set in the mid-1960s; that animated CGI versions of the younger Sean Connery, Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell, and Desmond Llewelyn be used to play their old parts; that John Barry's old scores be forever re-mixed; and that every sketch or doodle Ken Adam made be turned into sets for the films.
That last idea you mention sounds good.
I think, though, that a reboot can always be reversed. Wasn’t the reboot a reaction to the consequences resulting from the of the sort of “reboot” that happened when Roger Moore came along? For me Live and Let Die was just as much a reboot in its day as CR is.
you what? you never seen a friend and said 'hello pal'? i think when people type things, the reader can interpret them in different ways. i'm not saying 'pal' as in 'welcome to the party pal', i'm just using it as a generic name for you.
i'll refrain from using 'pal' in case it offends you and refer to you as 'NTSC' instead.
ah so you must like the db5 in CR then? if you're a fan of homages you must be DAD's biggest fan )
in 10 years time, the CR reboot will have become the norm and will have evolved past its original concept. that is, if they continue to develop the films that way, but i think a reboot is done, the franchise takes a different direction and then things evolve from there. 10 years later and its too late, its like saying when a kid walk for the first time 'you wait, 10 years time and he'll have forgot what legs are'.
Now that you’ve explained “pal” wasn’t being used aggressively, you can keep calling me it.
cheers HAL, i mean, pal.
i think its a wise thing to always bear in mind that tone of voice and manerisms seldom translate through text alone.
Wasn’t the reboot a reaction to the consequences resulting from the of the sort of “reboot” that happened when Roger Moore came along? For me Live and Let Die was just as much a reboot in its day as CR is.
I don't see that at all. . .Diamonds Are Forever completely broadcast the kind of film LALD would be: more overt comedy, a less-serious approach to the plot, more stuntwork (come to think of it, maybe DAF was a reboot of the '60s). Anyway, the only thing different about LALD was Roger Moore playing Bond.
Vox clamantis in deserto
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,746Chief of Staff
Sorry Osris, I think it's been pulled.
It was very bad quality and many who've seen it didn't like it
But I thought it looked quite good.
Hopefully the proper Trailer will be released soon.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Sorry Osris, I think it's been pulled.
It was very bad quality and many who've seen it didn't like it
But I thought it looked quite good.
Hopefully the proper Trailer will be released soon.
The trailer has not been pulled.....at least not as I type this. There is another trailer rumoured to be attached to Total Recall that is likely to be released on or around 3rd August.
1.22 "I'm your new Quartermaster" "You must be joking!" Well, that is the first homage to 50 years of Bond.
If my memory of the trailer is correct Bond actually dubs the new Quartermaster as "Q" in a derisive/mocking tone.
I'm glad they have kept the contentious relationship between Bond and Q. The advent of a young, geeky, arrogant Q
should work well alongside Craig's harder, more prickly Bond persona. Craig's Bond persona would just come off as mean and disrespectful with an older Desmond Llewellyn type as Q if the relationship were to be played as contentious.
Wasn’t the reboot a reaction to the consequences resulting from the of the sort of “reboot” that happened when Roger Moore came along? For me Live and Let Die was just as much a reboot in its day as CR is.
I don't see that at all. . .Diamonds Are Forever completely broadcast the kind of film LALD would be: more overt comedy, a less-serious approach to the plot, more stuntwork (come to think of it, maybe DAF was a reboot of the '60s). Anyway, the only thing different about LALD was Roger Moore playing Bond.
Yes, come to think of it DAF was more of a reboot. In a way, so was Goldfinger, as that really marked the change from the serious Bond to the fantasy one.
Sorry Osris, I think it's been pulled.
It was very bad quality and many who've seen it didn't like it
But I thought it looked quite good.
Hopefully the proper Trailer will be released soon.
Sorry Osris, I think it's been pulled.
It was very bad quality and many who've seen it didn't like it
But I thought it looked quite good.
Hopefully the proper Trailer will be released soon.
The trailer has not been pulled.....at least not as I type this. There is another trailer rumoured to be attached to Total Recall that is likely to be released on or around 3rd August.
Well, it looks better than the shorter trailer I saw. But I don't like the idea of Q being played by a guy so young. I don’t see the need for a young Q, as Q is not the character viewers go to Bond films for.
Also, I hope that music on the trailer isn't the actual music from the film—its appalling.
But I don't like the idea of Q being played by a guy so young. I don’t see the need for a young Q, as Q is not the character viewers go to Bond films for.
I really don't understand this comment at all.
You don't see the need for Q to be young, as people don't go to the film to see him? Eh?
First up, what the hell as Q's age got to do with his popularity?
Secondly, after having no Q since DAD, I'm dying to see the character back in a bond film. The role of Q, Q branch, the gadgets and the cars have been a pivotal part of what makes a James Bond film. Take all that out of the equation and you'll end up back with a Bourne fi.... oh god i brought up chunks then.
You really gotta pack it in with this overbearing opinionated way of putting your point across.
"Q is not the character viewers go to Bond films for" <
Really? says who?
Maybe you could try saying things like "I'm not that fussed with Q, as he's not what I go to see a Bond film for"?
I must admit that I avoided this thread entirely until today because I didn't like the negative thread title. There are lots of films that I seriously dislike and wish I had not wasted hours of my life on ("Inception" being a fairly recent dislike) but, considering how many other people do like them, I would never be as brazen as to describe them as 'bad', rather that I simply didn't like them.
As for Q, in the 1950s/1960s, armourers/quartermasters/gadget geeks would all have been WW2 veterans in their 50s or 60s at least. When was the last time you saw anyone in an IT department (the closest contemporary equivalent to a Q-Section) today in their 60s? In my experience they're all either very young...or very Russian. So making Q young is no different than having today's Bond drive an Aston Martin DBS V12 instead of a 1930 Bentley 4 1/2 Litre
The only thing I'd say about the new Q is that he should look more military like. Seriously, a QM should have experience with handling everything from socks to LAWs, and he should (and would have IMO) some military background and experience. The new Q looks more like Maurice Moss.
Q is supposed to be head of Q branch is he not? So just saying 'oh hes actually more of a techy geek guy than an ex military weapons handler' don't cut it with me. If in charge, he should be the daddy of everything, no?
The only thing I'd say about the new Q is that he should look more military like. Seriously, a QM should have experience with handling everything from socks to LAWs, and he should (and would have IMO) some military background and experience. The new Q looks more like Maurice Moss.
Q is supposed to be head of Q branch is he not? So just saying 'oh hes actually more of a techy geek guy than an ex military weapons handler' don't cut it with me. If in charge, he should be the daddy of everything, no?
I agree. This is what I was trying to say in my "age" comment. Q has to be a bit older than the actor in the trailer, in my view. The actor not only is young, he looks young. As if he's just left college or something.
But I don't like the idea of Q being played by a guy so young. I don’t see the need for a young Q, as Q is not the character viewers go to Bond films for.
I really don't understand this comment at all.
You don't see the need for Q to be young, as people don't go to the film to see him? Eh?
First up, what the hell as Q's age got to do with his popularity?
Secondly, after having no Q since DAD, I'm dying to see the character back in a bond film. The role of Q, Q branch, the gadgets and the cars have been a pivotal part of what makes a James Bond film. Take all that out of the equation and you'll end up back with a Bourne fi.... oh god i brought up chunks then.
You really gotta pack it in with this overbearing opinionated way of putting your point across.
"Q is not the character viewers go to Bond films for" <
Really? says who?
Maybe you could try saying things like "I'm not that fussed with Q, as he's not what I go to see a Bond film for"?
I realise that I have to now keep saying "in my view" after every opinion I make in this thread, as minigeff, apparently, needs it spelling out that any opinion I have is not God-given.
The way you write stuff comes across as you're speaking for the nation. You seem to think you're some kind of film expert and somehow know what the nation thinks.
Has it occurred to you that us fans might have different opinions?
Don't start getting all petty with it, you just need to stop talking for everyone and express YOUR opinion in the usual ways we use, by using phrases such as 'I think', 'in my opinion' and 'I feel'.
This isn't me saying 'spell it out in black and white cos I'm a bit thick', it's saying FFS MAN USE PROPER FECKING PHRASES.
The way you write stuff comes across as you're speaking for the nation. You seem to think you're some kind of film expert and somehow know what the nation thinks.
Has it occurred to you that us fans might have different opinions?
Don't start getting all petty with it, you just need to stop talking for everyone and express YOUR opinion in the usual ways we use, by using phrases such as 'I think', 'in my opinion' and 'I feel'.
This isn't me saying 'spell it out in black and white cos I'm a bit thick', it's saying FFS MAN USE PROPER FECKING PHRASES.
I would hope most people here would know full well that anything any of us says here is only opinion. It would be a very stilted way of talking if after every sentence I said: 'I think', 'in my opinion' and 'I feel'. This is an unrealistic way of speaking outside of a formal parliamentary debate—I feel. Besides, I have used ‘in my view’ in this thread several times, which you seem to have overlooked, in my opinion.
I was sceptical at first, but the comment about being able to cause damage in his pyjamas made me think YES!!
The scene between 007 and Q is set to be a classic IN MY OPINION!!!
The way you write stuff comes across as you're speaking for the nation. You seem to think you're some kind of film expert and somehow know what the nation thinks.
Has it occurred to you that us fans might have different opinions?
Don't start getting all petty with it, you just need to stop talking for everyone and express YOUR opinion in the usual ways we use, by using phrases such as 'I think', 'in my opinion' and 'I feel'.
This isn't me saying 'spell it out in black and white cos I'm a bit thick', it's saying FFS MAN USE PROPER FECKING PHRASES.
I would hope most people here would know full well that anything any of us says here is only opinion. It would be a very stilted way of talking if after every sentence I said: 'I think', 'in my opinion' and 'I feel'. This is an unrealistic way of speaking outside of a formal parliamentary debate—I feel. Besides, I have used ‘in my view’ in this thread several times, which you seem to have overlooked, in my opinion.
You've missed the point numbnuts, it's not a 'fact/opinion' point I'm making, im trying to point out to you that the way you write, it would appear that you speak for us all, ie YOUR opinion is the same as everyone else's.
I'm gonna leave you alone now as that stick on your forehead must be causing you a headache.
The way you write stuff comes across as you're speaking for the nation. You seem to think you're some kind of film expert and somehow know what the nation thinks.
Has it occurred to you that us fans might have different opinions?
Don't start getting all petty with it, you just need to stop talking for everyone and express YOUR opinion in the usual ways we use, by using phrases such as 'I think', 'in my opinion' and 'I feel'.
This isn't me saying 'spell it out in black and white cos I'm a bit thick', it's saying FFS MAN USE PROPER FECKING PHRASES.
I would hope most people here would know full well that anything any of us says here is only opinion. It would be a very stilted way of talking if after every sentence I said: 'I think', 'in my opinion' and 'I feel'. This is an unrealistic way of speaking outside of a formal parliamentary debate—I feel. Besides, I have used ‘in my view’ in this thread several times, which you seem to have overlooked, in my opinion.
Christ this is getting boring...if you will set a thread with a deliberately provocative title that makes 'category mistakes (look it up) and loaded assumptions you cannot be surprised. This has nothing to do with the rebooted Bond being beyond question. I for one loved CR and loathed QOS.
Comments
I thought CR was very Good, Caught it again on TV during the week
and thought it stood up well, Sure it's not in the old formula but I'd
rate it very Highly.
I think part of my disliking of QOS is because CR was so good, I was
expecting so much more., and it didn't deliver for me,( I know many
here on AJB think it was very good indeed )
I also agree there were many bad reviews of QOS. Although I have a different
view on Skyfall than you, as I think Eon will have taken on Board some of the
complaints from fans and reviewers and will provide something more of the
quality of CR.
As for the reboot. It's Done. we can't go back, all we can hope for is that they
will gradually re-introduce some loved characters ( mabey with a contemporary take )
MINOR SPOILER ALERT
At the moment I'm happier now after seeing the 2nd trailer with a bit of banter
between Q and Bond, mabey I'm in for another let down, but I'd rather be a bit
positive. Travel in hope and all that.
Q and Bond - you'll not be disappointed. from what i can gather its new, he's not des, but it'll be a grower, ie you might not like it at first but things may change the more you see of him.
what i'd really like to see is the same faces playing the characters so we can get a little familiar with them. if ben whishaw's outing as Q is a one off i'd be a little disappointed, unless he really is useless, but somehow i thnk i'm going to be moderately pleased with his role in skyfall.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I'm not sure how you "jettison" a reboot. . .Skyfall is bringing Q back into the fold (admittedly, a very new interpretation of him) and there are still rumors that Moneypenny will be in the film, or even that Judi Dench's M will be cashiered out and a new M--perhaps even the original Sir Miles Messervy--will start calling the shots. The series has been rebooted: you can't put that genie back in the bottle.
Really--and this is not directed at you, Osris--there are a lot of people who have been moaning and groaning about the series since M became a woman. You hear the gripes that the series is now "politically correct" and has no real connection to the good old days of the series--whenever they were. I'm convinced that some people will not be happy until every film is set in the mid-1960s; that animated CGI versions of the younger Sean Connery, Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell, and Desmond Llewelyn be used to play their old parts; that John Barry's old scores be forever re-mixed; and that every sketch or doodle Ken Adam made be turned into sets for the films.
Thanks for your understanding.
well said HB.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Now that you’ve explained “pal” wasn’t being used aggressively, you can keep calling me it.
Have you got a link for that trailer, you mention?
cheers HAL, i mean, pal.
i think its a wise thing to always bear in mind that tone of voice and manerisms seldom translate through text alone.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
That last idea you mention sounds good.
I think, though, that a reboot can always be reversed. Wasn’t the reboot a reaction to the consequences resulting from the of the sort of “reboot” that happened when Roger Moore came along? For me Live and Let Die was just as much a reboot in its day as CR is.
I agree.
I don't see that at all. . .Diamonds Are Forever completely broadcast the kind of film LALD would be: more overt comedy, a less-serious approach to the plot, more stuntwork (come to think of it, maybe DAF was a reboot of the '60s). Anyway, the only thing different about LALD was Roger Moore playing Bond.
Pardon me ?
QoS didn't do well at the box office ? Are you SURE ? It took almost as much as CR did...
I think you have all your 'facts' wrong...
It was very bad quality and many who've seen it didn't like it
But I thought it looked quite good.
Hopefully the proper Trailer will be released soon.
The trailer has not been pulled.....at least not as I type this. There is another trailer rumoured to be attached to Total Recall that is likely to be released on or around 3rd August.
Skyfall Trailer 2 - Poor Quality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOf-l7gKE_s
If my memory of the trailer is correct Bond actually dubs the new Quartermaster as "Q" in a derisive/mocking tone.
I'm glad they have kept the contentious relationship between Bond and Q. The advent of a young, geeky, arrogant Q
should work well alongside Craig's harder, more prickly Bond persona. Craig's Bond persona would just come off as mean and disrespectful with an older Desmond Llewellyn type as Q if the relationship were to be played as contentious.
Did you not notice the car, then?
Yes, come to think of it DAF was more of a reboot. In a way, so was Goldfinger, as that really marked the change from the serious Bond to the fantasy one.
That's a pity.
Well, it looks better than the shorter trailer I saw. But I don't like the idea of Q being played by a guy so young. I don’t see the need for a young Q, as Q is not the character viewers go to Bond films for.
Also, I hope that music on the trailer isn't the actual music from the film—its appalling.
I really don't understand this comment at all.
You don't see the need for Q to be young, as people don't go to the film to see him? Eh?
First up, what the hell as Q's age got to do with his popularity?
Secondly, after having no Q since DAD, I'm dying to see the character back in a bond film. The role of Q, Q branch, the gadgets and the cars have been a pivotal part of what makes a James Bond film. Take all that out of the equation and you'll end up back with a Bourne fi.... oh god i brought up chunks then.
You really gotta pack it in with this overbearing opinionated way of putting your point across.
"Q is not the character viewers go to Bond films for" <
Really? says who?
Maybe you could try saying things like "I'm not that fussed with Q, as he's not what I go to see a Bond film for"?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
As for Q, in the 1950s/1960s, armourers/quartermasters/gadget geeks would all have been WW2 veterans in their 50s or 60s at least. When was the last time you saw anyone in an IT department (the closest contemporary equivalent to a Q-Section) today in their 60s? In my experience they're all either very young...or very Russian. So making Q young is no different than having today's Bond drive an Aston Martin DBS V12 instead of a 1930 Bentley 4 1/2 Litre
Q is supposed to be head of Q branch is he not? So just saying 'oh hes actually more of a techy geek guy than an ex military weapons handler' don't cut it with me. If in charge, he should be the daddy of everything, no?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I agree. This is what I was trying to say in my "age" comment. Q has to be a bit older than the actor in the trailer, in my view. The actor not only is young, he looks young. As if he's just left college or something.
I realise that I have to now keep saying "in my view" after every opinion I make in this thread, as minigeff, apparently, needs it spelling out that any opinion I have is not God-given.
The way you write stuff comes across as you're speaking for the nation. You seem to think you're some kind of film expert and somehow know what the nation thinks.
Has it occurred to you that us fans might have different opinions?
Don't start getting all petty with it, you just need to stop talking for everyone and express YOUR opinion in the usual ways we use, by using phrases such as 'I think', 'in my opinion' and 'I feel'.
This isn't me saying 'spell it out in black and white cos I'm a bit thick', it's saying FFS MAN USE PROPER FECKING PHRASES.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I would hope most people here would know full well that anything any of us says here is only opinion. It would be a very stilted way of talking if after every sentence I said: 'I think', 'in my opinion' and 'I feel'. This is an unrealistic way of speaking outside of a formal parliamentary debate—I feel. Besides, I have used ‘in my view’ in this thread several times, which you seem to have overlooked, in my opinion.
I was sceptical at first, but the comment about being able to cause damage in his pyjamas made me think YES!!
The scene between 007 and Q is set to be a classic IN MY OPINION!!!
You've missed the point numbnuts, it's not a 'fact/opinion' point I'm making, im trying to point out to you that the way you write, it would appear that you speak for us all, ie YOUR opinion is the same as everyone else's.
I'm gonna leave you alone now as that stick on your forehead must be causing you a headache.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Christ this is getting boring...if you will set a thread with a deliberately provocative title that makes 'category mistakes (look it up) and loaded assumptions you cannot be surprised. This has nothing to do with the rebooted Bond being beyond question. I for one loved CR and loathed QOS.