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.
My response to which you are referring was to minigeff's saying I should use "I think" etc. after everything I say, which I think is a bit unreasonable, considering not everyone here is following that advice.
I did earlier concede that my title for this thread was too provocative.
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.
Again, you seen to be interpreting what I have said to what you think I said. For some reason, I’ve ruffled your feathers, for which I apologise. You might have anger issues that I’m unaware of. All I can do is express my opinions. If that offends you I can’t help that.
I’ve already said that I did use “in my view” several times in this thread. If that’s not good enough for you, I’m sorry.
We've beat on our friend Osris enough now, don't you think? I'm sure he'll be more careful about his "provocative" titles from now on. Can we move on?
I agree. . .in fact, the tone of CERTAIN MEMBERS WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER is getting borderline abusive. Let's stop the name calling and remember that opinions are like certain bodily orifices--everyone has one and they all stink. If this keeps up I'll have to close the thread. . .or take other actions.
We've beat on our friend Osris enough now, don't you think? I'm sure he'll be more careful about his "provocative" titles from now on. Can we move on?
I agree. . .in fact, the tone of CERTAIN MEMBERS WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER is getting borderline abusive. Let's stop the name calling and remember that opinions are like certain bodily orifices--everyone has one and they all stink. If this keeps up I'll have to close the thread. . .or take other actions.
Good old BL, AJB last line of defence. )
Pouring oil over troubled waters.
( Then setting fire to it as he rushes away in a speedboat to watch one of his favourite
Bonds in A View to a Kill ) )
Sometimes it's all too easy to get caught up in a squabble, I've done it myself.
It's nice to shake hands and move on, Or as in my case just up the perscription Drugs. :v
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
) At first I was going to extend my hand to poor Osris and invite him to sue, but I thought better of it! Now - off to watch A View To A Kill for the 1000th time! -{
Good old BL, AJB last line of defence. )
Pouring oil over troubled waters.
( Then setting fire to it as he rushes away in a speedboat to watch one of his favourite
Bonds in A View to a Kill ) )
Sometimes it's all too easy to get caught up in a squabble, I've done it myself.
It's nice to shake hands and move on, Or as in my case just up the perscription Drugs. :v
We've beat on our friend Osris enough now, don't you think? I'm sure he'll be more careful about his "provocative" titles from now on. Can we move on?
I agree. . .in fact, the tone of CERTAIN MEMBERS WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER is getting borderline abusive. Let's stop the name calling and remember that opinions are like certain bodily orifices--everyone has one and they all stink. If this keeps up I'll have to close the thread. . .or take other actions.
+1
I always try to incorporate as much "I think, I believe, IMHO" in my replies as possible but I don't think every line you write at AJB should start with "In my humble, stupid, silly, uninformed opinion I think that....." But in my humble, stupid, silly, uninformed opinion I think that calling someone numbnuts is worse than calling the last 2 movies terrible.
Thanks to those who’ve come to my defence regarding minigeff’s insult to me. I’ll bow out of this thread, now, as my continued presence in it might only make things worse.
Is it just me or does the Bond reboot borrow quite a bit from the original film series? Particularly with the villains?
Le Chiffre of CR for example is tied with Quantum but isn't an actual member, much like Doctor No from the eponymous film works for SPECTRE but isn't one of the executive team as far as we know (he isn't referred as number X or communicate w/ Blofeld at all). Both FRWL and QOS have several high ranking members of their respective nebulous evil organization. And now a standalone villain in SF. I just hope Raoul doesn't have a "Silva" fetish in the film, because that would be too obvious of a ripoff.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I recall reading from one Craig fan that he was the ONLY actor to of been able to play
the torture scene in CR. Really ?
I think that was probably me. I believe I said that I couldn't imagine any other actor doing it, though I'm not 100% sure of my exact words.
Actually, Connery's interpretation/era was such that I don't think he could have done it...because it never would have been on the table for discussion. Certainly not a knock on any other Bond actor. Possibly Dalton could have. Lazenby as well. But for me, it was a case of classic good timing: the harder-edge, more Flemingesque take on the character (again merely my opinion, mind)...and the legal availability of the source material. Not merely gushing about Formerly Poor DannyTM here.
But I stand by my statement. I can't imagine any other Bond actor doing it.
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
I recall reading from one Craig fan that he was the ONLY actor to of been able to play
the torture scene in CR. Really ?
I think that was probably me. I believe I said that I couldn't imagine any other actor doing it, though I'm not 100% sure of my exact words.
Actually, Connery's interpretation/era was such that I don't think he could have done it...because it never would have been on the table for discussion. Certainly not a knock on any other Bond actor. Possibly Dalton could have. Lazenby as well. But for me, it was a case of classic good timing: the harder-edge, more Flemingesque take on the character (again merely my opinion, mind)...and the legal availability of the source material. Not merely gushing about Formerly Poor DannyTM here.
But I stand by my statement. I can't imagine any other Bond actor doing it.
I can envisage all of them doing it apart from Moore. I think Connerry could have done a fine job, and Lazenby's vulnerability could have served him well. However Craig completely 'owns' that scene to the extent that for me it is a series highlight, and one that he dominates so completely that it is hard to imagine anyone topping it.
Sorry Guys, Don't get Me wrong I'm not Knocking Craig. It's a fantastic scene
although I do find the "scratching " joke a little contrived, Mabey Sir Roger might
of delivered it better. )
But I do feel Connery and Dalton could of done this just as well. Lazenby, Brosnan
and Moore, Mabey Not.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Well, the others had their genre of film and in that sense, no, the ball breaking scene just wouldn't have worked. The others has a sort of mock sadism, so Connery had his laser directed at the crotch in GF, which is relatively playful because of the context. It's not just brute sadism.
So yeah, the scene works for Craig and his style of film, just as I can't imagine him doing a good many scenes the other Bonds pulled off with aplomb.
I have a hard time believing that Roger Moore would have been convincing in the CR torture scene. Nor do I think Craig could have pulled off Moore's "SIT!" from Octopussy. And that's a GOOD thing, if you ask me!
Well, the others had their genre of film and in that sense, no, the ball breaking scene just wouldn't have worked. The others has a sort of mock sadism, so Connery had his laser directed at the crotch in GF, which is relatively playful because of the context. It's not just brute sadism.
So yeah, the scene works for Craig and his style of film, just as I can't imagine him doing a good many scenes the other Bonds pulled off with aplomb.
So what you're saying is Only Craig had the Balls to Pull it Off.
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
CASINO ROYALE I rate highly, though it's not without its problems (what film is?). The film stutters a bit after Bond's torture & could have benefitted from some judicious editing to tighten up the Venice stuff but on balance it delivers the goods. QUANTUM OF SOLACE gets a lot of stick, some of it unfair. If CASINO should be a bit shorter I reckon QUANTUM should be a bit longer. A bit too much emphasis on action, not unlike TOMORROW NEVER DIES (second film syndrome = action overload?). My big gripe with QUANTUM is the way it's made. I'm baffled by the modern trend for rendering an image absolutely unwatchable & when I saw Dan Bradley's name attached to it my heart sank. The amount of time & money that goes into setting up complex stunt sequences is completely undone by getting the camerman to throw his Arriflex round a room or swing it randomly on a rope. I know the idea is to get the audience into the thick of it, but I don't want to sit next to Bond in a car chase (much as I like the bloke). I want to be in the safe car observing his escapades! SKYFALL looks cracking from what I've seen so far, but I imagine Broccoli & Wilson will be keeping a close eye on how THE BOURNE LEGACY does at the box-office. If it underwhelms significantly at the box office they may see it as a signal that audience trends for such material are changing, preferring pure escapism to navel-gazing.
I have a question and then a statement. Will SkyFall be continueing the Quantum Saga? Now for my statement I was aware and from some of the postings I have read many of you were'nt that Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace was part of a three picture trilogy I saw Casino as chapter one we get our first look at Bond who is more like the way Fleming wrote him in my book instead of Specter they introduce Quantum ( and knowing of the existance of such groups in our real world, scares the hell outa me) who are really the villains of the piece. In QoS we now have a revenge driven slighty burnt out Bond who is calling on all his SBS and HMSS training to keep from sliceing and diceing Mr White like a side of beef The to the discovery of who or I should say what Quantum is and throw in the secondary revenge story and you get a bridge between the first and third movie I was suprised when Bond set out on his revenge hunt after M got hurt some one didnt tell him when you seek revenge remember to dig two graves. In conclusion I wasnt expecting alot outa Quantum since like Empire Strikes Back it was a bridgeing movie
Is it just me or does the Bond reboot borrow quite a bit from the original film series? Particularly with the villains?
Le Chiffre of CR for example is tied with Quantum but isn't an actual member, much like Doctor No from the eponymous film works for SPECTRE but isn't one of the executive team as far as we know (he isn't referred as number X or communicate w/ Blofeld at all). Both FRWL and QOS have several high ranking members of their respective nebulous evil organization. And now a standalone villain in SF. I just hope Raoul doesn't have a "Silva" fetish in the film, because that would be too obvious of a ripoff.
If you go by the Book Julius No was Persona Non Grata with the Chinese Tongs thats why he had those metal claw like hands in the book the had been cut off. Le Chiffre had to be updated since he could not be the money man and I believe regional KGB man in that part of France, been years since I read the book and since Quantum is portrayed as a almost Multi-national corporation of money and power brokers I can see why Mr White head shot him after he lost all that money. Okay now since all I have seen of Skyfall which looks ubber great whats the deal with the blond haired Latino fellow who calls M mommy is he part of Quantum?
By the looks of it i bet the current M is secretly working for SPECTRE (if they are keeping that name) and Silva wants to expose the truth about her to Bond.
Thats just what i think, and Ralph Fiennes may be the next M
I have a question and then a statement. Will SkyFall be continueing the Quantum Saga? Now for my statement I was aware and from some of the postings I have read many of you were'nt that Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace was part of a three picture trilogy I saw Casino as chapter one we get our first look at Bond who is more like the way Fleming wrote him in my book instead of Specter they introduce Quantum. . .
It was announced pretty early on--before Skyfall even went into production--that Quantum wouldn't be in the story, so, nope, the new film is not part of a trilogy. Also, in Fleming's CR the villainous organization was the Soviet SMERSH. . .SPECTRE came much, much later.
Comments
My response to which you are referring was to minigeff's saying I should use "I think" etc. after everything I say, which I think is a bit unreasonable, considering not everyone here is following that advice.
I did earlier concede that my title for this thread was too provocative.
Again, you seen to be interpreting what I have said to what you think I said. For some reason, I’ve ruffled your feathers, for which I apologise. You might have anger issues that I’m unaware of. All I can do is express my opinions. If that offends you I can’t help that.
I’ve already said that I did use “in my view” several times in this thread. If that’s not good enough for you, I’m sorry.
I agree. . .in fact, the tone of CERTAIN MEMBERS WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER is getting borderline abusive. Let's stop the name calling and remember that opinions are like certain bodily orifices--everyone has one and they all stink. If this keeps up I'll have to close the thread. . .or take other actions.
Agree.
Pouring oil over troubled waters.
( Then setting fire to it as he rushes away in a speedboat to watch one of his favourite
Bonds in A View to a Kill )
Sometimes it's all too easy to get caught up in a squabble, I've done it myself.
It's nice to shake hands and move on, Or as in my case just up the perscription Drugs. :v
+1
I always try to incorporate as much "I think, I believe, IMHO" in my replies as possible but I don't think every line you write at AJB should start with "In my humble, stupid, silly, uninformed opinion I think that....." But in my humble, stupid, silly, uninformed opinion I think that calling someone numbnuts is worse than calling the last 2 movies terrible.
Le Chiffre of CR for example is tied with Quantum but isn't an actual member, much like Doctor No from the eponymous film works for SPECTRE but isn't one of the executive team as far as we know (he isn't referred as number X or communicate w/ Blofeld at all). Both FRWL and QOS have several high ranking members of their respective nebulous evil organization. And now a standalone villain in SF. I just hope Raoul doesn't have a "Silva" fetish in the film, because that would be too obvious of a ripoff.
I think that was probably me. I believe I said that I couldn't imagine any other actor doing it, though I'm not 100% sure of my exact words.
Actually, Connery's interpretation/era was such that I don't think he could have done it...because it never would have been on the table for discussion. Certainly not a knock on any other Bond actor. Possibly Dalton could have. Lazenby as well. But for me, it was a case of classic good timing: the harder-edge, more Flemingesque take on the character (again merely my opinion, mind)...and the legal availability of the source material. Not merely gushing about Formerly Poor DannyTM here.
But I stand by my statement. I can't imagine any other Bond actor doing it.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I can envisage all of them doing it apart from Moore. I think Connerry could have done a fine job, and Lazenby's vulnerability could have served him well. However Craig completely 'owns' that scene to the extent that for me it is a series highlight, and one that he dominates so completely that it is hard to imagine anyone topping it.
although I do find the "scratching " joke a little contrived, Mabey Sir Roger might
of delivered it better.
But I do feel Connery and Dalton could of done this just as well. Lazenby, Brosnan
and Moore, Mabey Not.
So yeah, the scene works for Craig and his style of film, just as I can't imagine him doing a good many scenes the other Bonds pulled off with aplomb.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Thats just what i think, and Ralph Fiennes may be the next M
It was announced pretty early on--before Skyfall even went into production--that Quantum wouldn't be in the story, so, nope, the new film is not part of a trilogy. Also, in Fleming's CR the villainous organization was the Soviet SMERSH. . .SPECTRE came much, much later.
Fingers crossed that Judi Dench finally gets the boot.