322 replies to this topic

[Bonita]

No offense meant to you, Stromberg! I respect your intentions and your views!

keep dancing...

[stromberg]

No offense meant to you, Stromberg! I respect your intentions and your views!

keep dancing...

No problem. I'm actually surprised at times that I get away with my sometimes pidginish gibberish

[Santa]

No offense meant to you, Stromberg! I respect your intentions and your views!

keep dancing...

No problem. I'm actually surprised at times that I get away with my sometimes pidginish gibberish

Your English is excellent, not at all pidgin.

[Loomis]

First, if you tell someone that their review lacks writerly skills, you might want to say it is "poorly written" not "badly written."

Why? What's the difference? I'm not having a go at anyone, but, as a native English speaker (who has also, by the by, been employed as a journalist ), I must confess that I too would have written "badly written". How come it's grammatically incorrect? Why is "poorly written" okay, but "badly written" isn't? If I say that "THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH is badly directed", am I dropping the ball grammar-wise? I'm genuinely curious about this and would appreciate a grammar explanation.

Also, attacking a professional writer's output (even on a blog) is not terribly civil.

Well, true, and I don't like to see my old compadre DLib attacked, but, still, many of us attack the output of professional filmmakers, do we not? So why should pro journos get a pass when pro screenwriters (hello, Pervert and Waddle) and pro directors (e.g. Irvin Kershner) don't?

[Santa]

Indeed. Ummmm, "deserves its bad press", though.

[danslittlefinger]

I'll stick to acronyms and symbols then as goodness knows, I would not want my english to be disseminated.

QoS = PoS

[DLibrasnow]

If you want then don't go to Quantum expecting to get that same experience. It is just not that kind of movie. Bond does not advise Agent Fields to "use natural cover," for example.

And the movie is all the poorer because of it

[Bonita]

First, if you tell someone that their review lacks writerly skills, you might want to say it is "poorly written" not "badly written."

Why? What's the difference? I'm not having a go at anyone, but, as a native English speaker (who has also, by the by, been employed as a journalist ), I must confess that I too would have written "badly written". How come it's grammatically incorrect? Why is "poorly written" okay, but "badly written" isn't? If I say that "THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH is badly directed", am I dropping the ball grammar-wise? I'm genuinely curious about this and would appreciate a grammar explanation.

Also, attacking a professional writer's output (even on a blog) is not terribly civil.

Well, true, and I don't like to see my old compadre DLib attacked, but, still, many of us attack the output of professional filmmakers, do we not? So why should pro journos get a pass when pro screenwriters (hello, Pervert and Waddle) and pro directors (e.g. Irvin Kershner) don't?

One should not take much of what I write seriously, but...

"BAD" best implies malevolence, evil intent. One behaves "badly". The word "badly" should be a way of placing "bad" with the action being modified. Now, "bad" has come to mean 'inadequate or objectionable" ('that was a bad idea"), but in this sense, "bad" does not address intent or skill. You can't apply that usage to "He was a bad man." So you can see there that the word is commonly used as an easy substitute for other words that might be better or more precise. So when you turn it into an adverb - i.e. "badly", and you attempt to define it to mean a lack of skill, you further dilute it from the root word. "Badly" can address a cosmetic quality ("the car was badly damaged"). But for intent, "badly" is a poor modifier to imply "lack of skill". We may be comfortable saying, "He shot badly," as a substitute for "He was a bad shot," but in both cases the root word really impugns the intent of the shooter, not the skill at which he shot. If you say someone "fought badly", are you saying they couldn't fight well or that they broke the rules?

"POOR" is a word that (when not addressing personal wealth) does address quality more clearly than intent. It specifically addresses the skill level of the subject. "The new cowboy rode poorly." One makes a "poor choice of words," or "poor words were used." But if "bad words were used," we would all think foul language was involved.

No one cares, but that's the rational.

I certainly didn't say that we don't all attack the professional output of our friends and peers, it is just not civil to do so (courteous and polite).

Keep dancing...

[stamper]

Campbell never let Craig off the leash IMO;

Campbell knows how to make Craig look good. The few shots he doesn't look good are those alternate shots found in the trailer that weren't used in the final film. Craig's face is special, you have to know how to shoot and edit, and retain the good angles, to make him look cool and bondian, and capture the performances.

Forster not only turns Craig loose, he pours gasoline on him and sets him on fire.

And what an ugly sight it is. Craigs looks marginaly good in maybe 2mn of film if we edits the shots together. He is ugly in nearly all the shots. It's another reason people screams of this not being Bond, and the Brosnan brigade is back on nearly all forums going "toldya !". Contract not fulfilled. Example of good looking Craig is the scene he let go of Greene. You can look good with your face covered in blood and scratches, which works there (too bad the scene is hacked to bits). Now, on the performance side, Craig spend so much time with his head tilted in the movie, I'm surprised it's his arm, and not his neck, that is in a cast during recent promotions and premieres.

PS : I'm not going to go in the suits, with the jackets in inverted V form, looking like women's dresses... Just give me Craig like in CR's Casino, or the ending when he stands above White. Now, THAT is James Bond.

[DamnCoffee]

Craig looked fine.

[Santa]

First, if you tell someone that their review lacks writerly skills, you might want to say it is "poorly written" not "badly written."

Why? What's the difference? I'm not having a go at anyone, but, as a native English speaker (who has also, by the by, been employed as a journalist ), I must confess that I too would have written "badly written". How come it's grammatically incorrect? Why is "poorly written" okay, but "badly written" isn't? If I say that "THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH is badly directed", am I dropping the ball grammar-wise? I'm genuinely curious about this and would appreciate a grammar explanation.

Also, attacking a professional writer's output (even on a blog) is not terribly civil.

Well, true, and I don't like to see my old compadre DLib attacked, but, still, many of us attack the output of professional filmmakers, do we not? So why should pro journos get a pass when pro screenwriters (hello, Pervert and Waddle) and pro directors (e.g. Irvin Kershner) don't?

One should not take much of what I write seriously, but...
//
"BAD" best implies malevolence, evil intent. One behaves "badly".

Perfectly appropriate here then, no?

[Marquis]

Campbell never let Craig off the leash IMO;

Campbell knows how to make Craig look good. The few shots he doesn't look good are those alternate shots found in the trailer that weren't used in the final film. Craig's face is special, you have to know how to shoot and edit, and retain the good angles, to make him look cool and bondian, and capture the performances.

Forster not only turns Craig loose, he pours gasoline on him and sets him on fire.

And what an ugly sight it is. Craigs looks marginaly good in maybe 2mn of film if we edits the shots together. He is ugly in nearly all the shots. It's another reason people screams of this not being Bond, and the Brosnan brigade is back on nearly all forums going "toldya !". Contract not fulfilled. Example of good looking Craig is the scene he let go of Greene. You can look good with your face covered in blood and scratches, which works there (too bad the scene is hacked to bits). Now, on the performance side, Craig spend so much time with his head tilted in the movie, I'm surprised it's his arm, and not his neck, that is in a cast during recent promotions and premieres.

PS : I'm not going to go in the suits, with the jackets in inverted V form, looking like women's dresses... Just give me Craig like in CR's Casino, or the ending when he stands above White. Now, THAT is James Bond.

I wondered how long it would be before the bitter & twisted Brosnan-ettes started playing the "ugly" card.

Pathetic!

[Bonita]

"BAD" best implies malevolence, evil intent. One behaves "badly".
Perfectly appropriate here then, no?

What Stromberg wrote was:

"There are 'good' reviews and there are 'bad' reviews, but it's not the same as 'positive' and 'negative' reviews. I don't mind the fact that it's a negative review (one of my favourite reviews on CR is negative to no end, and I loved the movie), but this one is just bad. And badly written."

Stromberg is addressing the quality of the writing here and clearly separating that from the intent of the writer to damage the film.

If not for that, I'd concede your point!

keep dancing...

[DLibrasnow]

Well one of my friends just called and pleaded with me to go see Quantum of Solace with her. She's hot so I guess I am headed over to see it a second time.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Well one of my friends just called and pleaded with me to go see Quantum of Solace with her so I guess I am headedc over to see it a second time.

Alright Darren! I predict a change of heart. You will join us or die!

[00Twelve]

Well one of my friends just called and pleaded with me to go see Quantum of Solace with her so I guess I am headedc over to see it a second time.

Good luck to you. Here's hoping that a second viewing helps the movie to find more value in your eyes.

[1q2w3e4r]

Well one of my friends just called and pleaded with me to go see Quantum of Solace with her. She's hot so I guess I am headed over to see it a second time.

Hey, at least your going with a hot chick, so it can't be a total loss right?

[Bondian]

Well one of my friends just called and pleaded with me to go see Quantum of Solace with her. She's hot so I guess I am headed over to see it a second time.

Never say never again.

Hope you like it better this time, Darren.

Cheers,


Ian

[bondrules]

Well one of my friends just called and pleaded with me to go see Quantum of Solace with her so I guess I am headedc over to see it a second time.

Alright Darren! I predict a change of heart. You will join us or die!

LMAO!

[Tarl_Cabot]

Well one of my friends just called and pleaded with me to go see Quantum of Solace with her. She's hot so I guess I am headed over to see it a second time.

Hey, at least your going with a hot chick, so it can't be a total loss right?

Hey, I thought you were married Darren? You evil bastid!

[Bondian]

He was, my friend. He may feel a little upset about it though.

[SecretAgent007]

I don't always agree with what Darren writes, and I don't think NSNA is the best of the Bond films, but I have to say, I was pretty deflated when the film was over and am in general agreement with his opinion of the film. I felt embarrassed during the titles, thought there was way to much action and not enough plot. I'm just beside myself and can't really articulate my feelings yet. After about 15 minutes, I was just shaking my head the whole time. I didn't get much of a Bond vibe from this film at all. To me, it just came off as another run of the mill action film that you can watch on Cinemax at 2 AM, but with a budget. The only part of the film that was Bondian to me was when Bond is listening in on the meeting at Tosca and says they should find somewhere better to meet. The fight scene after didn't work for me. I guess the inter-cuts with the stage should have made the scene more dramatic, but it didn't work for me. This film was so wrong on so many levels.......I wish they would have pushed the release date back, fired Foster, the editor, and MK12 and re-cut the film.

Edited by SecretAgent007, 16 November 2008 - 09:26 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

I can only speculate that I saw an entirely different film than the one you chaps are talking about. Worst Bond in history? I can't even remotely see it... the performances and visual style alone elevate it above half of the Bond canon.

Half the canon? Nearly all of it.

Of course the worst Bond movie is Never Say Never Again. It's not even a proper movie.

Funny how the member who started this thread is going to see the movie again.

[avl]

Well one of my friends just called and pleaded with me to go see Quantum of Solace with her. She's hot so I guess I am headed over to see it a second time.

Time to take one for the team

[Kristian]

Funny how the member who started this thread is going to see the movie again.

.... especially after starting such a MELODRAMATIC and INFLAMMATORY thread.

What do they call someone like that? Starts with the letter "H" and rhymes with "Sanskrit"?

[Loomis]

First, if you tell someone that their review lacks writerly skills, you might want to say it is "poorly written" not "badly written."

Why? What's the difference? I'm not having a go at anyone, but, as a native English speaker (who has also, by the by, been employed as a journalist ), I must confess that I too would have written "badly written". How come it's grammatically incorrect? Why is "poorly written" okay, but "badly written" isn't? If I say that "THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH is badly directed", am I dropping the ball grammar-wise? I'm genuinely curious about this and would appreciate a grammar explanation.

Also, attacking a professional writer's output (even on a blog) is not terribly civil.

Well, true, and I don't like to see my old compadre DLib attacked, but, still, many of us attack the output of professional filmmakers, do we not? So why should pro journos get a pass when pro screenwriters (hello, Pervert and Waddle) and pro directors (e.g. Irvin Kershner) don't?

One should not take much of what I write seriously, but...

"BAD" best implies malevolence, evil intent. One behaves "badly". The word "badly" should be a way of placing "bad" with the action being modified. Now, "bad" has come to mean 'inadequate or objectionable" ('that was a bad idea"), but in this sense, "bad" does not address intent or skill. You can't apply that usage to "He was a bad man." So you can see there that the word is commonly used as an easy substitute for other words that might be better or more precise. So when you turn it into an adverb - i.e. "badly", and you attempt to define it to mean a lack of skill, you further dilute it from the root word. "Badly" can address a cosmetic quality ("the car was badly damaged"). But for intent, "badly" is a poor modifier to imply "lack of skill". We may be comfortable saying, "He shot badly," as a substitute for "He was a bad shot," but in both cases the root word really impugns the intent of the shooter, not the skill at which he shot. If you say someone "fought badly", are you saying they couldn't fight well or that they broke the rules?

"POOR" is a word that (when not addressing personal wealth) does address quality more clearly than intent. It specifically addresses the skill level of the subject. "The new cowboy rode poorly." One makes a "poor choice of words," or "poor words were used." But if "bad words were used," we would all think foul language was involved.

No one cares, but that's the rational.

I certainly didn't say that we don't all attack the professional output of our friends and peers, it is just not civil to do so (courteous and polite).

Keep dancing...

Well, Bonita, I'm still dancing.

Cheers for the explanation. As I've always said, I learn something new every day on CBn, whether it be that Charles Gray voices that pyramids tape in TSWLM (I mean, I was a Bond fan for about thirty years before stumbling upon that piece of information!), or that the original title of QUANTUM OF SOLACE was CASINO ROYALE II: BEYOND THE ICE, or, in this case, that the English language is like heroin: a cruel mistress.

[Bonita]

I fully (if not financially) support DLibra going to see QoS again. Heck, I saw NSNA FIVE TIMES in the cinema before I finally, firmly concluded that it was (for me) a stinking turd of a movie. With Bond (and Bond nuts) you need to try again and again to see if the film is really as good or as bad as you thought it was. There is just something about introducing a new Bond in the system. You have to work with it a bit to see if the body is going to accept or reject the new organ.

DLibra, I hope this time it takes.

Keep dancing....

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

1. Brosnan movies are not bad, get over with it everyone, the ing CGI was 'OMFG' for the time and you know you liked it.

Brosnan movies ARE bad, get over with it, BlackFire.

If Brosnan's movies were BAD, I (as LOTS of every people in the world) haven't been a James Bond fan, a James Bond collector, a CBn Forum member or a writer in a Bond site!

To simplify

Brosnan fans, don't mess up with Craig

...and...

Craig fans, don't mess up with Brosnan.

Thank you

We'll say what we want. When we want. It's a free country. At least, the U.S. is.

And to the person who actually believes we were all secretly-dazzled by the lovely CGI in DAD but are afraid to say so... may I suggest you turn off your PlayStation and read a book for a change.

I agree with you that Die Another Day wasn't a good Bond film, but I'm really pissed off with all the nonesense of "Craig is good, Brosnan is a sh...", or vice versa.
I was (and I'm still) against the CraigNotBonders who said Craig will be a bad Bond (and worse things), but as a person who grew up with Brosnan films I really can't stand when someone says bad things about him.

I'm quite sure Connery fans wouldn't like someone insulting him. Neither all the other Bond fans. I don't wanna make a cat fight here, please sorry if I offended someone.

[Kristian]

1. Brosnan movies are not bad, get over with it everyone, the ing CGI was 'OMFG' for the time and you know you liked it.

Brosnan movies ARE bad, get over with it, BlackFire.

If Brosnan's movies were BAD, I (as LOTS of every people in the world) haven't been a James Bond fan, a James Bond collector, a CBn Forum member or a writer in a Bond site!

To simplify

Brosnan fans, don't mess up with Craig

...and...

Craig fans, don't mess up with Brosnan.

Thank you

We'll say what we want. When we want. It's a free country. At least, the U.S. is.

And to the person who actually believes we were all secretly-dazzled by the lovely CGI in DAD but are afraid to say so... may I suggest you turn off your PlayStation and read a book for a change.

I agree with you that Die Another Day wasn't a good Bond film, but I'm really pissed off with all the nonesense of "Craig is good, Brosnan is a sh...", or vice versa.
I was (and I'm still) against the CraigNotBonders who said Craig will be a bad Bond (and worse things), but as a person who grew up with Brosnan films I really can't stand when someone says bad things about him.

I'm quite sure Connery fans wouldn't like someone insulting him. Neither all the other Bond fans. I don't wanna make a cat fight here, please sorry if I offended someone.

You haven't offended anyone, Nic. Fandom is a messy world. We all have our loyalties and opinions, and sometimes it gets nasty. But my beef isn't with you - you're fabulous (and cute!) - it's with whoever stated that we all really loved that awful CGI in DAD and just didn't want to admit it. If he was being ironic, I didn't catch it. I think he actually meant it, which is the most terrifying notion I have ever entertained...

Ciao, bello...

Edited by Kristian, 16 November 2008 - 10:46 PM.

[Bonita]

Loomis,

What's your source for Gray? Is this like (wrong) idea that Joseph Wiseman did the voice for Blofeld in Thunderball?

The only thing I know is that the person who was hired was the same actor who did the English language track for the actual light show. I've seen that light show years back, and it IS the same voice. So unless Gray did that track, it just ain't him.

Keep dancing...