The James Bond Thread

[MirrorMask]

I guess they just can't resign to the possiblity of the box office being a relative disaster because of fewer people in the theatre, and they want to release it when all cinemas and theatres of the world can be filled. Yeah, keep waiting I'm afraid.

[jammindude]

As I pointed out in the other thread where theaters are closing, if they don’t start thinking about releasing them now there won’t be any theaters left to open them in

[Cool Chris]

As I pointed out in the other thread where theaters are closing, if they don’t start thinking about releasing them now there won’t be any theaters left to open them in

That's... not something I had ever considered...

[jammindude]

As I pointed out in the other thread where theaters are closing, if they don’t start thinking about releasing them now there won’t be any theaters left to open them in

That's... not something I had ever considered...

LOL

You almost sound sarcastic. But since you didn’t put it in green I’m going to assume you’re serious. Regal is already closing down. Has anyone heard if AMC is considering the same? If they do, I can’t think of who would be left.

I don’t know about the rest of the nation, but in the Northwest, effectively all the theaters that are not small time independent movie houses are all either AMC or Regal. So up in these parts, Regal shutting down means that 50% of the big movie houses are gone.

[Cool Chris]

I was being serious, I knew theaters were approaching the precipice, but I never thought of it in terms of "if they don’t start thinking about releasing them now there won’t be any theaters left to open them in." I rarely go to movies, so this has not been on my radar up until recently.

[Stadler]

I'm sure there's data out there that can prove me right or wrong, but I approach this the same way I approach the complaints from record companies about downloading:  sounds like a scapegoat excuse for larger/deeper problems that have finally come home to roost.

I LOVE watching movies in theaters; it's an event, you get a nice comfy chair, someone else making you popcorn, great sound, immersive visuals...   and yet I'm lucky if I go once or twice a year.   It's expensive, it's a hassle, it's annoying (cell phones, talkers, walkers) and I just would rather stay home.  The movie theaters are not losing me because of COVID, just like record companies aren't losing me because of downloading (I just buy my CDs direct, or through eBay, pawn shops or Discogs, at about 20% of the list price).  I understand that there are artists on the other end, and I feel bad about that, but I also know there is a middle man in there that isn't really bringing value beyond scale.   

[ZirconBlue]

As I pointed out in the other thread where theaters are closing, if they don’t start thinking about releasing them now there won’t be any theaters left to open them in

The movie studios will probably just buy up the theater chains when they go into bankruptcy.

[Kotowboy]

^ Red Letter Media put that idea forward.

Then you'd have like DISNEY Cinemas which only play Disney films  etc etc.

So you'd end up only going to the cinema to see mega budget tentpole blockbusters

And all the dramas etc would go straight to streaming.

[ZirconBlue]

^ Red Letter Media put that idea forward.

Then you'd have like DISNEY Cinemas which only play Disney films  etc etc.

So you'd end up only going to the cinema to see mega budget tentpole blockbusters

And all the dramas etc would go straight to streaming.

The court felt that would not be the case:

“Given this changing marketplace, the Court finds that it is unlikely that the remaining Defendants would collude to once again limit their film distribution to a select group of theaters in the absence of the Decrees and, finds, therefore, that termination is in the public interest,” Torres wrote.

If they try that again, they'll probably find themselves back in court with another Antitrust case.  I would expect some preferential treatment, but not to the full extent of only showing that studio's movies. 

[Arkarian]

Hi everyone,

been following DTF for quite some time, but finally decided to create an account. Nice to meet you all. I used to be on the MPforums under the same user name back in the days.

*NO SPOILERS EXCEPT IF YOU HAVEN'T HEARD THE TITLE SONG YET*
So I watched No Time the other day. Has anyone noticed how similar the beginning of the title track is to the beginning of "Moment of Betrayal"? I mean, it's a very common cadence, but it's even in the same key. Coincidence, no doubt, but I still found it worth mentioning.

Arkarian

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Welcome! 

[Phoenix87x]

I'm seeing it tomorrow

[Phoenix87x]

Just got back from seeing it and I thoroughly enjoyed it. To be totally honest, I think its my favorite Craig era film and that is coming from someone who hated SPECTRE.

It was almost like a SPECTRE re-do in some ways, or at least a SPECTRE part two, because it directly continues the story, but anyway. Despite being almost 3 hours, I was engaged pretty much the whole time. Cutting maybe 20 mins would have served it well, but I'm still happy.

The action scenes were so much better this time. Many scenes and set pieces were visually stunning. Story was the highest stakes of any Craig film and pulled me in.

Really like Rami Malek as the villain and he had some cool Dr. No kind of vibes, but worked very well as his own character. Very sinister, believable as someone not to be screwed with.

So yeah, I went in not expecting much and left very satisfied.

[TheOutlawXanadu]

Saw it last night... Amazing! I remember seeing Casino Royale when I was just a lad in high school, and I never would have imagined that Craig would play Bond for 15 years. I think that they pulled off something pretty special with this five-film run. Casino Royale and Skyfall are still my favorites but this one doesn't lag far behind. Am genuinely sad that it's over but happy that I got to experience it.

[Cool Chris]

Random thought... my mom was a huge fan of the series through Connery and Moore, and thus I was exposed to the films early on, and that love for them carried on to me. That first part isn't really relevant to what I was going to post, just wanted to give context.

I found this video of all the gun barrel sequences, and it reminded me of something that has always bothered me. Connery's look so clunky, awkward, and unbecoming a suave master spy like Bond, especially compared to all those that follow. Everyone else seems to have a little grace and fluidity to their movements. Connery looks like he almost trips himself and would be lucky to hit the broadside of a barn.

Also just noticed Craig in Spectre is the only one where Bond isn't hiding the gun while walking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV7h55ha52E

[Zantera]

I think the new one is good, and a solid send off for Craig and I would place it below Casino Royale and Skyfall but above Spectre and Quantum of Solace. For me the opening sequence in Italy is top tier opening sequences in the franchise, and the Cuba set piece and the Norway chase and forest set piece are great as well. For me the movie does lose some steam in the final third, and I never really felt I got a good sense of Rami Malek's motivation as a villain once he kinda finishes his objective half way through the movie. I know other movies have also done that "bad guy is bad because he is bad", so I'm not saying he's worse than many other Bond villains, but I wish there was a little bit more there.

Even though I felt the movie stumbled a little bit towards the end, it's still probably one of the best final Bond movies for the actor. I'd put License to Kill for it (then again Dalton is my personal favorite), but whether it was Connery, Moore or Brosnan, it felt like their final movies were a bit "Yeah its time to move on now". Wouldn't really count Lazenby in this case since he only did 1. (Though I personally love that one)

[Kotowboy]

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS



So I haven't seen the film yet but i've overheard people reveal the ending... Which makes me think in the next one - they'll just be the new 007 agent whoever it is

and at the end they reveal his new name is James Bond in honour of the greatest 00 agent. So he won't be James Bond til the end -

then M will take him aside and go " you are now a 00 agent. You are..007 and your name is..Bond....James Bond. "

Also here's my Bond 26 Dream Team :

Director : Christopher Nolan or Martin Campbell the director of Goldeneye and Casino Royale if he is still around.

Director of Photography : Roger Deakins 

Score : Hans Zimmer

Bond : Idris Elba


Also - Dan Craig is right. Bond should always be a man. because that's who James Bond is. How about making NEW ROLES for Women and People of Colour

instead of piggybacking established IPs for brand recognition as a shortcut like Ghostbusters 2016 did. And in the end it was a terrible slapped together pile of crap.

[ZirconBlue]

I found this video of all the gun barrel sequences, and it reminded me of something that has always bothered me. Connery's look so clunky, awkward, and unbecoming a suave master spy like Bond, especially compared to all those that follow. Everyone else seems to have a little grace and fluidity to their movements. Connery looks like he almost trips himself and would be lucky to hit the broadside of a barn.

Also just noticed Craig in Spectre is the only one where Bond isn't hiding the gun while walking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV7h55ha52E

For those who are unaware, for the first 3 films, that wasn't Connery in the gun barrel sequence. 

[Cool Chris]

For those who are unaware, for the first 3 films, that wasn't Connery in the gun barrel sequence. 

No way! I didn't know that.

[fadetoblackdude7]

For those who are unaware, for the first 3 films, that wasn't Connery in the gun barrel sequence. 

No way! I didn't know that.

It was Bob Simmons

[Cool Chris]

Had to look up who that was. Cool bit of trivia. Though not sure why they felt compelled to have him do it and not Connery.

[ErHaO]

Watched the first four Craig films in prep for No Time To Die.

Casino Royale was as good as I remember. Quantum of Solace was much better than I remember. I actually don't really have a criticism other than that it is a fairly standard action film that lives in the shadow of it's prequel and sequel. Skyfall is almost as good as Casino Royale. Spectre is solid for about 2/3 of it's duration and then it becomes really dumb. For a moment I thought I was going to enjoy it way more than I remembered, as with Quantum. But at soon as they enter the Spectre base, and Blowfield starts talking, the script jumps the shark. I like Craig's Bond so I am glad he got another one and I hope it is a proper sendoff.

[Phoenix87x]

1. Casino royale - Great, nothing else for me to say

2. Quantum of solace - I'll admit it has a lot of flaws. The plot is dumb, the villain is awful, but I've always enjoyed it. 

3. Skyfall- Outside of Bardem's performance, this movie is not for me. Great theme song though.

4. SPECTRE - Really don't like this one. Left the theater very let down, But I do love the opening mexico scene and the unused Radiohead theme is my favorite Bond song.

5. No time to die - Thoroughly enjoyed it

[fadetoblackdude7]

Casino Royale: Perfect in every way
Quantum of Solace: Bad
Skyfall: Amazing, almost matches CR
Spectre: Good
No Time to Die: Amazing, competing with Skyfall for 2nd place. Need to see it more

[soupytwist]

So the first half of No Time To Day is amazing - brilliant (and long) pre credit sequence, loved the Cuba section - Ana as Paloma was the star of the film, shame she only gets about 15 minute.  The second half though drops off, aside from a good action section in a misty forest - the rest is pretty flat.  Lucifer Satan (!) was a poor villain, the return of Blofeld was underwhelming and the finale was, well......I guess we still not using spoilers so I'll just say I didn't like it.

1. Casino
2. Skyfall.
3. No Time.
4. Spectre.
5. Quantum.

[Zantera]

I don't know how interesting this would be for everyone else but No Time to Die kinda gave me the idea to go back, and watch all the Bond movies again from the beginning. I grew up with these movies and one of my fondest memories from when I was a kid was that they used to show all the Bond movies on TV - one every Friday, and in that time, what was on TV was actually quite important as a kid, because it was pre-streaming and in my case pre-downloading, so what was on TV was likely going to be your options for the night unless you rented a movie. But yeah they used to show all the Bond movies once or twice a year, so for a couple of years during my transformative years, the Friday Bond night with some snacks was a big highlight. But what made me want to do a full re-watch is the fact that since the Craig movies came out, I haven't really seen any of the pre-Brosnan movies in probably 15 years or so.

Watched Dr. No (1962) the other night and I'm not sure how high it's ranked by fans but I thought it was a decent first film of the franchise. Some interesting things I took note of was that it wasn't Sean Connery in the gun barrel sequence, no big scene before the intro and there was no Bond song (other than the theme which you get in all the movies). I actually didn't remember much from this one at all except for the scene when someone tries to have Bond killed by letting a tarantula (that isn't even venomous as far as i know?) into his hotel room. That sequence stuck with me as a kid, I guess cause spiders. For being the first Bond movie I was still slightly surprised we got some of the staples we just did in the Craig movies like SPECTRE being referenced and Felix Leiter being in it. Dr. No as a bad guy didn't really stand out that much though, I was actually surprised when I saw his face revealed that I didn't remember him from my childhood at all. You also get 'secret base on an island' as the bad guy lair which is also a recurring thing at this point. Overall a pretty solid first entry and Connery does a good job, it didn't really stand out too much with the exception of a fairly creative tank made out to look like a dragon spitting fire. As a Bond film I'd say it's maybe a 7/10 or so, quite enjoyable but also certain things haven't fallen into place yet.

I could post my thoughts for the other ones as I go through them as well (maybe 1 or 2 a week)

[soupytwist]

I think Dr No did a great job of introducing us to the character of Bond, he almost comes out fully formed right from the off in this movie.   The plot though is really quite under developed and the Bond world in general isn't really started here.  The next film 'From Russia' is the one where we really start to see the staples of the franchise.

[Phoenix87x]

I always liked Dr. No, but it wasn't on regular rotation for me. Its good for what it is, but you can tell they were feeling things out and the plot kind of meanders at times. Really like Dr. No as a villain. The robot hands are a little whacky, but his cold, calculating personality I found interesting.

But then they follow it up with one of my favorites in the series with From Russia, so yeah they were definitely on to something.

[Kotowboy]

Some of the Connery era films are just DULL. I think Never Say Never Again is completely boring.

I always preferred Roger Moore because the films knew what they were and weren't so po faced.

They started phasing out the campiness with Dalton and by the time we got to Dan Craig they almost had no sense of humour left.

That's what I miss with current Bond. I think Goldeneye was the last one where it had the perfect balance of serious VS silly.

But it was obvious with Die Another Day that the silliness had gone a bit too far.

[Stadler]

I just bought the super duper deluxe box set of Bond films on eBay, and I'm going to do the same thing.  I really like the Bond films; I want to like Connery the best, but "The Spy Who Loved Me" is my favorite of the films, and Pierce Brosnan is my favorite of the actors that played him, so I guess that tells us nothing! 

I will say this:  I have a low tolerance for camp; it's either perfect (the Batman TV shows) or it's unwatchable, so there are a couple latter day Moore movies I haven't seen that I'm not so sure about.

[Kotowboy]

To me - the Bond films were ALWAYS tongue in cheek. The DC films mostly removed all of that.

[ZirconBlue]

I did a full series re-watch a year or two ago.  One thing I noticed is how often Bond is saved by luck, rather than any skill.  He's pretty shitty as a spy, really.  If he weren't superhumanly lucky, he would have been dead decades ago.

[jammindude]

I did a rewatch with my boxed set back when Skyfall had just come out.

Going from memory, I struck me that the Moore films were very hit and miss. Live and Let Die was so over the top campy and stupid that it was hard to even take seriously. It was like they were making fun of blaxploitation films and it was just silly. The Spy Who Loved Me is considered a classic, but I found it rather boring. Moonraker is terrible. But I rather enjoyed Man with the Golden Gun, A View to a Kill, and For Your Eyes Only. I don’t remember much about Octopussy.

I thought the Connery movies were much more consistent. From Russia with Love is probably my favorite but I think Diamonds are Forever doesn’t deserve the hate it gets.

[Stadler]

One other point: this will be the first time watching after having read the entire Fleming series (I don't read those written by ghost or guest authors).   I know some follow closely, some steal elements, and some are merely the same title, so it will be interesting.

[Phoenix87x]

out of all them, there's probably only like 5 that I love, with Goldeneye being the favorite.

Besides that I like most of them, and there's a handful I really have no desire to watch again, like Die another day and never say never again.