Could you please explain this highly offensive remark ?
Quick, jerky, hard to follow -- why are you offended?
Because of the use of the word 'spastic' - I'm also surprised you tried to defend your crass comment, it does you no favours.
Hmm. Well, it does me no favors to have someone accuse me of being offensive without giving proper explanation. The editing in QofS is spastic, as in of or related to spasms -- suddenly bursts of movement or energy -- that make it difficult to follow the action. Are you using the term differently? If you are, that's not how I used it nor intended it, in which case we have a situation called bypassing. But I chose the term to illustrate what the editing approximates, not to be pejorative.
I just looked up the word and see that one of definitions is slang for someone with cerebral palsy. That's not common in the States, or at least not where I live. I can assure you I wasn't making that comparison, nor would that contextually make much sense. But if that's the reason you're troubled, I do apologize. It was not intentional.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,749Chief of Staff
That's not common in the States, or at least not where I live.
Not trying to argue, GM, just as your fellow Yank I'd like to point out the derivation "spaz" is kind of common here--or least it was when I was a young'un, used to denigrate anyone who seemed nerdy or otherwise ill at ease. But the tussle is over and done with. . .
Vox clamantis in deserto
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,749Chief of Staff
Thanks. I truly did not intend to offend, but I will choose such wording more carefully in the future.
I appreciate the fact that it may not be an over familiar term to you...it was in common usage here in the '60's & '70's, but it is now only used by the rude and ignorant and is quite insulting.
That's not common in the States, or at least not where I live.
Not trying to argue, GM, just as your fellow Yank I'd like to point out the derivation "spaz" is kind of common here--or least it was when I was a young'un, used to denigrate anyone who seemed nerdy or otherwise ill at ease. But the tussle is over and done with. . .
Thanks, Hardyboy. That term I've heard, and as a child mostly of the 80s, it was common. But the association with an actual affliction and so forth was unknown to me till now. It had the nerd connotation, of course, but some people actually used it more positively, too, such as describing someone who was "spazzing out" over something they were excited about in a positive way, like a party or date -- kind of like "geeking out" is used today. Idiom and dialect certainly can change the use and interpretation of words. I am sorry if my use of the term seemed hurtful or insulting to anyone.
Thanks. I truly did not intend to offend, but I will choose such wording more carefully in the future.
I appreciate the fact that it may not be an over familiar term to you...it was in common usage here in the '60's & '70's, but it is now only used by the rude and ignorant and is quite insulting.
Anyway...all finished now.
I will refrain from using it in the future. I suspect "frenetic" or maybe even "discordant" would have been better for what I was trying to say.
I think his Quantum hair was his best. It made him look a lot younger and less of a dumb brute. (Not saying he *was* a dumb brute, he just looked like one. ) )
Also, to comment on the "Spastic" ordeal (Not to dust up some settled muck), but here in Canada the term "Spazz" is also quite common. I suppose different cultures collide! Anyway, no harm done, glad it's all settled.
It was a misstep to try to make him look more like Jason Bourne than James Bond.
I doubt if anyone was trying to make Craig look like Jason Bourne. I think it was decided that he would maintain his looks as they were and just focus on playing Bond to the best of his ability. Many people are pleased with the result and some aren't, but I wouldn't characterize the decision as a misstep.
Could be, Blackleiter. But Craig's Bonds all seem to have taken a page from the Bourne movies in terms of the fighting and toughness -- QoS even had the same spastic editing. While Daniel Craig may have lighter hair and features, he has darkened them in roles before, and I suspect the decision to keep them "natural" in part was influenced by the success of the Bourne films and character. I say this with the same suspicion that a reason we got Casino Royale was the success of another prequel juggernaut called Batman Begins. Of late, the Bonds, albeit quite successfully, seem to be playing catch up and imitator more than leader and innovator, right down to SF being The Wrath of Khan meets The Dark Knight.
Not to belabor the point, but I just don't buy the Bourne comparisons (aside from the similarity in film editing with respect to QOS). On the contrary, I think Bourne and other modern day spy films have taken many of their cues from Bond. As for Casino Royale somehow owing its existence to Nolan's Batman Begins, there have been numerous attempts by EON over the years to acquire the rights to Fleming's first Bond novel to bring a serious version to the screen. If the legal hurdles had been cleared earlier, I suspect CR would have been made long before anyone ever thought of rebooting Batman.
Worth noting as well that Begins was NOT a "juggernaut" - it was the 8th highest grossing film of 2005, and a sequel was not greenlit for quite some time (comparatively, at least, in the age of sequels being announced the Monday after a film opens). Begins did well, and built on home video before the trigger was pulled on a sequel.
I doubt if anyone was trying to make Craig look like Jason Bourne. I think it was decided that he would maintain his looks as they were and just focus on playing Bond to the best of his ability. Many people are pleased with the result and some aren't, but I wouldn't characterize the decision as a misstep.
Could be, Blackleiter. But Craig's Bonds all seem to have taken a page from the Bourne movies in terms of the fighting and toughness -- QoS even had the same spastic editing. While Daniel Craig may have lighter hair and features, he has darkened them in roles before, and I suspect the decision to keep them "natural" in part was influenced by the success of the Bourne films and character. I say this with the same suspicion that a reason we got Casino Royale was the success of another prequel juggernaut called Batman Begins. Of late, the Bonds, albeit quite successfully, seem to be playing catch up and imitator more than leader and innovator, right down to SF being The Wrath of Khan meets The Dark Knight.
Not to belabor the point, but I just don't buy the Bourne comparisons (aside from the similarity in film editing with respect to QOS). On the contrary, I think Bourne and other modern day spy films have taken many of their cues from Bond. As for Casino Royale somehow owing its existence to Nolan's Batman Begins, there have been numerous attempts by EON over the years to acquire the rights to Fleming's first Bond novel to bring a serious version to the screen. If the legal hurdles had been cleared earlier, I suspect CR would have been made long before anyone ever thought of rebooting Batman.
I think the tougher edge and in particular the frenetic fighting owe themselves more to the style of Bourne than anything else, and I don't doubt that there were attempts to acquire rights to Casino Royale in the past. But the film industry tends to work in trends. After Die Hard comes out in the late 1980s, for instance, we suddenly had a dozen Die Hard wannabes -- on ships, planes, trains, busses. In the 80s and 90s, sequels were all the rage. Now we're in the age of prequels and reboots -- Batman Begins, Casino Royale, Star Wars, The Thing, Prometheus, Dumb and Dumberer, Hannibal Rising, Star Trek, etc. The enormous success of one film or series -- such as Bourne and Batman Begins -- paves the way for Hollywood to greenlight other similar attempts, even if they've been tossed around in development for years.
Could be, Blackleiter. But Craig's Bonds all seem to have taken a page from the Bourne movies in terms of the fighting and toughness -- QoS even had the same spastic editing. While Daniel Craig may have lighter hair and features, he has darkened them in roles before, and I suspect the decision to keep them "natural" in part was influenced by the success of the Bourne films and character. I say this with the same suspicion that a reason we got Casino Royale was the success of another prequel juggernaut called Batman Begins. Of late, the Bonds, albeit quite successfully, seem to be playing catch up and imitator more than leader and innovator, right down to SF being The Wrath of Khan meets The Dark Knight.
Not to belabor the point, but I just don't buy the Bourne comparisons (aside from the similarity in film editing with respect to QOS). On the contrary, I think Bourne and other modern day spy films have taken many of their cues from Bond. As for Casino Royale somehow owing its existence to Nolan's Batman Begins, there have been numerous attempts by EON over the years to acquire the rights to Fleming's first Bond novel to bring a serious version to the screen. If the legal hurdles had been cleared earlier, I suspect CR would have been made long before anyone ever thought of rebooting Batman.
I think the tougher edge and in particular the frenetic fighting owe themselves more to the style of Bourne than anything else, and I don't doubt that there were attempts to acquire rights to Casino Royale in the past. But the film industry tends to work in trends. After Die Hard comes out in the late 1980s, for instance, we suddenly had a dozen Die Hard wannabes -- on ships, planes, trains, busses. In the 80s and 90s, sequels were all the rage. Now we're in the age of prequels and reboots -- Batman Begins, Casino Royale, Star Wars, The Thing, Prometheus, Dumb and Dumberer, Hannibal Rising, Star Trek, etc. The enormous success of one film or series -- such as Bourne and Batman Begins -- paves the way for Hollywood to greenlight other similar attempts, even if they've been tossed around in development for years.
You make a good point about Hollywood trends, particularly with respect to the recent spate of reboots and prequels. I view Bond a bit differently, though, because the other reboots and prequels usually occurred either after there has been a long hiatus since the previous incarnation (e.g. Prometheus and Batman Begins), or the last installment before the reboot or prequel wasn't particularly well-received (e.g. Star Trek and Die Hard). At any rate, I still believe that as a general rule Bond films tend to be trendsetters (elaborate stunts, exotic locales, colorful characters, etc.) more than they are trend followers.
At any rate, I still believe that as a general rule Bond films tend to be trendsetters (elaborate stunts, exotic locales, colorful characters, etc.) more than they are trend followers.
I think Bond stopped to be a trendsetter after OHMSS. We get Bond light in DAF, blaxploitation in LAD, kung fu in TMWTGG, greatest hits Bond in TSWLM, star wars Bond in MR, Indiana Jond in OP, 80's drugs in LTK, Terminator in TND, Bondman Begins in CR and James Bourned in QoS.
Not to belabor the point, but I just don't buy the Bourne comparisons (aside from the similarity in film editing with respect to QOS). On the contrary, I think Bourne and other modern day spy films have taken many of their cues from Bond. As for Casino Royale somehow owing its existence to Nolan's Batman Begins, there have been numerous attempts by EON over the years to acquire the rights to Fleming's first Bond novel to bring a serious version to the screen. If the legal hurdles had been cleared earlier, I suspect CR would have been made long before anyone ever thought of rebooting Batman.
I think the tougher edge and in particular the frenetic fighting owe themselves more to the style of Bourne than anything else, and I don't doubt that there were attempts to acquire rights to Casino Royale in the past. But the film industry tends to work in trends. After Die Hard comes out in the late 1980s, for instance, we suddenly had a dozen Die Hard wannabes -- on ships, planes, trains, busses. In the 80s and 90s, sequels were all the rage. Now we're in the age of prequels and reboots -- Batman Begins, Casino Royale, Star Wars, The Thing, Prometheus, Dumb and Dumberer, Hannibal Rising, Star Trek, etc. The enormous success of one film or series -- such as Bourne and Batman Begins -- paves the way for Hollywood to greenlight other similar attempts, even if they've been tossed around in development for years.
You make a good point about Hollywood trends, particularly with respect to the recent spate of reboots and prequels. I view Bond a bit differently, though, because the other reboots and prequels usually occurred either after there has been a long hiatus since the previous incarnation (e.g. Prometheus and Batman Begins), or the last installment before the reboot or prequel wasn't particularly well-received (e.g. Star Trek and Die Hard). At any rate, I still believe that as a general rule Bond films tend to be trendsetters (elaborate stunts, exotic locales, colorful characters, etc.) more than they are trend followers.
Good points, but I think the Bond films are only just starting to move back toward being trendsetters. They certainly are fashion-wise, but too much of SF was cribbing other things for my tastes. Believe me, I would love to see Bond get back to leading the pack more. Oddly enough, they might do that better by aping the early Bonds and letting Craig be both masculine and a bit more droll.
I think Bond stopped to be a trendsetter after OHMSS. We get Bond light in DAF, blaxploitation in LAD, kung fu in TMWTGG, greatest hits Bond in TSWLM, star wars Bond in MR, Indiana Jond in OP, 80's drugs in LTK, Terminator in TND, Bondman Begins in CR and James Bourned in QoS.
The funny thing is if you watch the Flint and Matt Helm movies, they largely predicted where the Bonds would go in the 1970s.
I think Bond stopped to be a trendsetter after OHMSS. We get Bond light in DAF, blaxploitation in LAD, kung fu in TMWTGG, greatest hits Bond in TSWLM, star wars Bond in MR, Indiana Jond in OP, 80's drugs in LTK, Terminator in TND, Bondman Begins in CR and James Bourned in QoS.
The funny thing is if you watch the Flint and Matt Helm movies, they largely predicted where the Bonds would go in the 1970s.
Precisely! Which is something I have lamented ever since (and a primary reason I'm not a big fan of most of the Roger Moore Bond films).
Precisely! Which is something I have lamented ever since (and a primary reason I'm not a big fan of most of the Roger Moore Bond films).
Oh, his first two were okay IMO, but TSWLM pushed it a lot, and MR went solid Flint. FYEO & OP couldn't erase MR from our memory, but they tried. Still, good entertainment from Sir Roger.
Comments
Not trying to argue, GM, just as your fellow Yank I'd like to point out the derivation "spaz" is kind of common here--or least it was when I was a young'un, used to denigrate anyone who seemed nerdy or otherwise ill at ease. But the tussle is over and done with. . .
I appreciate the fact that it may not be an over familiar term to you...it was in common usage here in the '60's & '70's, but it is now only used by the rude and ignorant and is quite insulting.
Anyway...all finished now.
Also, to comment on the "Spastic" ordeal (Not to dust up some settled muck), but here in Canada the term "Spazz" is also quite common. I suppose different cultures collide! Anyway, no harm done, glad it's all settled.
Not to belabor the point, but I just don't buy the Bourne comparisons (aside from the similarity in film editing with respect to QOS). On the contrary, I think Bourne and other modern day spy films have taken many of their cues from Bond. As for Casino Royale somehow owing its existence to Nolan's Batman Begins, there have been numerous attempts by EON over the years to acquire the rights to Fleming's first Bond novel to bring a serious version to the screen. If the legal hurdles had been cleared earlier, I suspect CR would have been made long before anyone ever thought of rebooting Batman.
I have to agree with the others though, Brosnan had the best hair in my humble opinion.
You make a good point about Hollywood trends, particularly with respect to the recent spate of reboots and prequels. I view Bond a bit differently, though, because the other reboots and prequels usually occurred either after there has been a long hiatus since the previous incarnation (e.g. Prometheus and Batman Begins), or the last installment before the reboot or prequel wasn't particularly well-received (e.g. Star Trek and Die Hard). At any rate, I still believe that as a general rule Bond films tend to be trendsetters (elaborate stunts, exotic locales, colorful characters, etc.) more than they are trend followers.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Precisely! Which is something I have lamented ever since (and a primary reason I'm not a big fan of most of the Roger Moore Bond films).
So I was very Happy with the "Superman" Bond.
and I'm looking forward to the new Man from UNCLE movie.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I agree it's good entertainment. Just not good Bond.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
It was good enough for Sir Sean.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
It could have been regarded as a... heirloom.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS