220 replies to this topic

[Mister E]

I don't think QOS will gross as much as TDK but I would love it to. I thought TDK was reasonable but nothing special, I don't understand the way people are falling over themselves to praise it Chris Nolan is still pretty poor as a director of action IMO].

I thought he did better this time but I think the action still fell a bit below expectations.

Can you see a Bond film, where the villain is the true star of the film and it is really the team at MI6 who try to appprehend him, and Bond only shows up for a quarter of the film?

I'd like that idea actually if they made the villian very interesting. That would be great for unveiling the leader of Quantum.

Edited by Mister E, 29 August 2008 - 11:54 PM.

[Harmsway]

Can you see a Bond film, where the villain is the true star of the film and it is really the team at MI6 who try to appprehend him, and Bond only shows up for a quarter of the film?

It would be kind of interesting, to be honest. Kind of like some of the Bond short stories, or Fleming's FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE or THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. I'd be up for it, if it was done well enough.

But I don't THE DARK KNIGHT has the Joker as the "true star of the film." He's there, but certainly no more so than Bruce Wayne/Batman. It's really a film shared by three folks: Bruce Wayne/Batman, Harvey Dent, and the Joker, with the most screentime going to Bruce Wayne/Batman.

The Joker steals the spotlight, to be sure, but that's not because of screentime or story devotion... it's more that he's just so magnetic (and stealing the spotlight has always been what the character's good at). Hopkins was only in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS for 15 minutes, and he is SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. But he's still not the protagonist, just the presence that hangs over the whole picture. Similar thing happened with the Joker and THE DARK KNIGHT.

[Loomis]

Can you see a Bond film, where the villain is the true star of the film and it is really the team at MI6 who try to appprehend him, and Bond only shows up for a quarter of the film?

It would be kind of interesting, to be honest. Kind of like some of the Bond short stories, or Fleming's FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE or THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. I'd be up for it, if it was done well enough.

Count me as another one who thinks it'd be a terrific idea. BOND 23, entitled RISICO, would be a perfect opportunity to introduce the head of Quantum, a certain Mr, erm, Risico and allow him to take centre stage.

But I don't THE DARK KNIGHT has the Joker as the "true star of the film." He's there, but certainly no more so than Bruce Wayne/Batman. It's really a film shared by three folks: Bruce Wayne/Batman, Harvey Dent, and the Joker, with the most screentime going to Bruce Wayne/Batman.

The Joker steals the spotlight, to be sure, but that's not because of screentime or story devotion... it's more that he's just so magnetic (and stealing the spotlight has always been what the character's good at). Hopkins was only in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS for 15 minutes, and he is SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. But he's still not the protagonist, just the presence that hangs over the whole picture. Similar thing happened with the Joker and THE DARK KNIGHT.

Y'know, I think THE DARK KNIGHT belongs to neither Bruce Wayne/Batman nor the Joker, crucial and compelling though both characters are. In my book, it's the story of Harvey Dent/Two-Face, and it's Aaron Eckhart's performance that steals the show. Good though Bale is, and superb though Ledger is, Eckhart is even better. That it's the least "showy" role of TDK's three main protagonists makes Eckhart's achievement all the more remarkable. I know he won't get one, but I reckon he deserves an Oscar nomination.

I'm surprised by Emma's verdict on TDK, especially as she says that she's twice as big a Batman fan as she is a James Bond fan. Personally, I'm not a Batman fan at all, and yet I'm toying with the idea of seeing TDK a third time on the big screen. Still, there were, of course, hardcore Bond fans who boycotted CASINO ROYALE.

[Mister E]

Count me as another one who thinks it'd be a terrific idea. BOND 23, entitled RISICO, would be a perfect opportunity to introduce the head of Quantum, a certain Mr, erm, Risico and allow him to take centre stage.

Yes but with a better name.

[Captain Tightpants]

Count me as another one who thinks it'd be a terrific idea. BOND 23, entitled RISICO, would be a perfect opportunity to introduce the head of Quantum, a certain Mr, erm, Risico and allow him to take centre stage.

Yes but with a better name.

Yeah, "risico" doesn't actually mean anything. It's a ba$tartisation of the talian word for "risk", but it hardly sounds Bondian at all.

[Mister E]

Count me as another one who thinks it'd be a terrific idea. BOND 23, entitled RISICO, would be a perfect opportunity to introduce the head of Quantum, a certain Mr, erm, Risico and allow him to take centre stage.

Yes but with a better name.

Yeah, "risico" doesn't actually mean anything. It's a ba$tartisation of the talian word for "risk", but it hardly sounds Bondian at all.

Really ? I didn't know that.

[baerrtt]

Can you see a Bond film, where the villain is the true star of the film and it is really the team at MI6 who try to appprehend him, and Bond only shows up for a quarter of the film?

It would be kind of interesting, to be honest. Kind of like some of the Bond short stories, or Fleming's FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE or THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. I'd be up for it, if it was done well enough.

Count me as another one who thinks it'd be a terrific idea. BOND 23, entitled RISICO, would be a perfect opportunity to introduce the head of Quantum, a certain Mr, erm, Risico and allow him to take centre stage.

But I don't THE DARK KNIGHT has the Joker as the "true star of the film." He's there, but certainly no more so than Bruce Wayne/Batman. It's really a film shared by three folks: Bruce Wayne/Batman, Harvey Dent, and the Joker, with the most screentime going to Bruce Wayne/Batman.

The Joker steals the spotlight, to be sure, but that's not because of screentime or story devotion... it's more that he's just so magnetic (and stealing the spotlight has always been what the character's good at). Hopkins was only in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS for 15 minutes, and he is SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. But he's still not the protagonist, just the presence that hangs over the whole picture. Similar thing happened with the Joker and THE DARK KNIGHT.

Y'know, I think THE DARK KNIGHT belongs to neither Bruce Wayne/Batman nor the Joker, crucial and compelling though both characters are. In my book, it's the story of Harvey Dent/Two-Face, and it's Aaron Eckhart's performance that steals the show. Good though Bale is, and superb though Ledger is, Eckhart is even better. That it's the least "showy" role of TDK's three main protagonists makes Eckhart's achievement all the more remarkable. I know he won't get one, but I reckon he deserves an Oscar nomination.

I'm surprised by Emma's verdict on TDK, especially as she says that she's twice as big a Batman fan as she is a James Bond fan. Personally, I'm not a Batman fan at all, and yet I'm toying with the idea of seeing TDK a third time on the big screen. Still, there were, of course, hardcore Bond fans who boycotted CASINO ROYALE.

Emma also believes Timothy Olyphant's character (and performance) in HITMAN is more in line with who Bond is (I kid you not) than Daniel Craig's interpretation.

She's entitled to her ahem unique opinions.

[Publius]

Yeah, "risico" doesn't actually mean anything. It's a ba$tartisation of the talian word for "risk", but it hardly sounds Bondian at all.

I think it's the Dutch word for "risk," though.

[kneelbeforezod]

Ledger was fine but all this talk you here of him deserving an Oscar because he's dead is ridiculous. Several other actors could have played that role just as well.

Its not ridiculous, and its not "because he's dead". And whether or not other actors could have played the part as well is irrelevant. Ledger did a splendid job of creating a memorable villain for the ages. Oscars aren't given out purely based on the technical difficulty of a part: if you create an iconic movie character, then you're in with a shot (see Hannibal Lector).

Ledger is just as deserving as, say, Javier Bardem last year, or Hopkins for that matter.

[Mister E]

Ledger was fine but all this talk you here of him deserving an Oscar because he's dead is ridiculous. Several other actors could have played that role just as well.

Its not ridiculous, and its not "because he's dead". And whether or not other actors could have played the part as well is irrelevant. Ledger did a splendid job of creating a memorable villain for the ages. Oscars aren't given out purely based on the technical difficulty of a part: if you create an iconic movie character, then you're in with a shot (see Hannibal Lector).

Ledger is just as deserving as, say, Javier Bardem last year, or Hopkins for that matter.

I say Ledger is one of the few young people who deserve their hype they die untimely. I may get crap for this but people such as James Dean and River Phoenix were never that impressive. Maybe they would have gotten better as they got older but when they died, I don't think either of them pulled off something brilliant like Ledger ever did.

Edited by Mister E, 30 August 2008 - 11:22 PM.

[Shot Your Bolt]

Ledger would be nominated for an Oscar even if he was alive. He was that damn good.