101 replies to this topic

[seawolfnyy]

the Academy Awards are a joke at this point. I watched Argo a few weeks ago. Nice movie. Best Picture of 2012 ?!

Based on their choice of nominees this year they're a joke. Gone are the times when the Academy were actually honoring the best in year for film. Now it's all a race to see what studio can make the best biopic and put out the worst Oscar bait. Acting awards are given to actors playing characters that are almost too easy to sympathize with. Not to mention, playing a character with any major illness nowadays pretty much locks that statue in for you. It's not longer about who truly had the best performance of the year, alongside his fellow nominations that were just as good.

Academy Awards are a joke, and will continue to be. Paul Thomas Anderson said it right.

If the Oscars weren't a joke, The Lego Movie would've gotten the best pic nom it so deserved. Also, Toy Story 3 would've beaten The King's Speech in 2011 and The Dark Knight and The Avengers (love them or hate them) would've gotten their nominations.

[FlemingBond]

while listening to talk of The Sound of Music's 50th anniversary last week it struck me. Would that film win best picture today?

doubt it. probably some film that 3 people saw and no one will ever watch again would.

[seawolfnyy]

Crash won over Brokeback Mountain. That's all we need to know.

[x007AceOfSpades]

I pretty much gave up when the Academy didn't recognize Jake Gyllenhaal's chilling performance in Nightcrawler.

[DaveBond21]

Personally speaking, dealing with Bond's childhood was the last thing I wanted to see in a 007 movie.

 

I'd rather have a double-taking pigeon.

 

But if that's the way they're going, then let's see how it does. I just wonder what they're going to do with the character after they've gone through his entire back story.

[JCRendle]

I think that, so long as they stay close to Fleming, it could be ok. Based on the teaser tailer, they've brought Charmaine Bond, Bond's aunt and guardian after his parent's death and Hannes Oberhauser, Bond's ski instructor and father figure after his parents death, into the Bond film canon. A nod to Fleming and a good indication that the writers (either Logan or P&W) respect the literary Bond. Much like Bond's Parent's graves in SF.

[DaveBond21]

OK, thanks for clearing this up.

[RMc2]

Everything they've done has been very reactionary.  People loved CR, so they decided to build that story out into a sequel and introduce Quantum as "the organization behind Le Chiffre".  People hated QOS, so they dropped all of that story and went all Nolan/Batman with SF.  That proved successful, so they're going the QOS route again with a sequel to SF. 

 

Spot on. Although it's worth noting that Purvis & Wade intended the Aston Martin in SF to be exactly the same one he won in CR - so as well as 'resolving' M and Bond's relationship, it does seem that SF was conceived as a sequel to CR, just not a direct sequel to QoS.

 

I suspect there's more than coincidence in the way Craig's films have vaguely reflected Connery's: FRWL was an explicit sequel to Dr No, then Goldfinger was standalone, then Thunderball reintroduced SPECTRE in a big way, while continuing some elements of Goldfinger.

[Tiin007]

 

Everything they've done has been very reactionary.  People loved CR, so they decided to build that story out into a sequel and introduce Quantum as "the organization behind Le Chiffre".  People hated QOS, so they dropped all of that story and went all Nolan/Batman with SF.  That proved successful, so they're going the QOS route again with a sequel to SF. 

 

Spot on. Although it's worth noting that Purvis & Wade intended the Aston Martin in SF to be exactly the same one he won in CR - so as well as 'resolving' M and Bond's relationship, it does seem that SF was conceived as a sequel to CR, just not a direct sequel to QoS.

 

I suspect there's more than coincidence in the way Craig's films have vaguely reflected Connery's: FRWL was an explicit sequel to Dr No, then Goldfinger was standalone, then Thunderball reintroduced SPECTRE in a big way, while continuing some elements of Goldfinger.

 

 

What concerns me is, unlike in the Connery era, it seems that EON are jumping the gun on SPECTRE the organization. At least in the 60s, we had the introduction to the organization (through one branch of it in DN), then two films where we are privvy to neither Blofeld's name nor face (FRWL and TB), and then finally the big pay off with YOLT (regardless of one's personal feelings towards the film, at least the scale of it was worth the wait). Now, with the Craig films, it seems that EON are introducing us to SPECTRE the organization, having Bond infiltrate a SPECTRE meeting, and utilizing Blofeld (or so it seems, unclear at this point) as the main villain, all in one film. Too much, too soon. I'd rather have some buildup over a number of films than potentially have a one-and-done with SPECTRE (the film).

 

That is my understanding of the teaser trailer, although I would love to be proven wrong. 

[Double-Oh Agent]

All four Daniel Craig films are connected to each other, each a part of the overall four-film storyline (so far). Quantum Of Solace was a direct follow up to Casino Royale whether it was months, weeks, or even days apart. After watching the teaser, the destroyed MI6 building clearly makes SPECTRE a direct follow up to Skyfall and Mr. White's appearance ties SPECTRE to Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace.

 

But going from Bond Begins in the first two films to the burnt out Bond who's (suddenly) too old in Skyfall and the change in appearance and manner of White in SPECTRE's teaser, obviously a great deal of time has passed between the two pairs of films. So I think it's safe to presume that Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace took place circa 2006 while Skyfall and SPECTRE take place either circa 2012 or 2015.

 

The question is what happened to Bond in the years between Quantum Of Solace and Skyfall?

[x007AceOfSpades]

Other missions happened.

 

Off-screen.

[JCRendle]

The question is what happened to Bond in the years between Quantum Of Solace and Skyfall?

 

Blood Stone, GoldenEye 007, 007 Legends.

[sharpshooter]

I like to believe Blood Stone happened after QoS. But not the others. I don't think they make much sense in the new timeline at all.

[x007AceOfSpades]

I don't take the games as cannon.

[bond_azoozbond]

I wish there was a novel or short story for what happend between QOS and SF .. I saw something similar between Batman Begins and TDK .. For now I think Bloodstone could work well enough considering the ending and relate it to SPECTRE ..

[JCRendle]

I don't think they make much sense in the new timeline at all.

I don't take the games as cannon.

 

Hence the

[sharpshooter]

For now I think Bloodstone could work well enough considering the ending and relate it to SPECTRE ..

True. I don't really consider the game canon but like to add it to the list anyway. The more Craig content the better.

 

I suspect not all the missions Bond takes on are explosive and dramatic as the films. Some could be rather boring and routine. I'm sure I remember Fleming's Bond expressing these thoughts from time to time. For example, the mission Bond takes on after Skyfall "with pleasure" could've been a rather basic assassination. Shooting in and out.

[Call Billy Bob]

Blood Stone, GoldenEye 007

These two are canon for me, for sure.

[Agent 76]

I pretty much gave up when the Academy didn't recognize Jake Gyllenhaal's chilling performance in Nightcrawler.

Hear, hear.

 

I was shocked really, that they didn't recognize his terrific work on that movie.

[seawolfnyy]

I don't take the games as cannon.

You mean James Pond isn't canon?

[DaveBond21]

Other missions happened.

 

Off-screen.

 

Yes, Dr No - DAD happened.

 

I love this idea. I also like the missions we see bits of. Bond is on an African job at the start of Moonraker. He is on his last leg.

 

He is also on a mission at the start of Goldfinger, TSWLM, Octopussy, AVTAK and TND, and out for revenge at the start of TB and DAF. He is also removed from unseen missions in OHMSS and TMWTGG.

[Call Billy Bob]

Yes, Dr No - DAD happened.

In another universe, maybe. Think of Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan Bond as Kal-L, the Superman of Earth-Two. Craig Bond could be seen as Kal-El, the Superman of Earth-One. Kal-L was the original Superman who first appeared in 1938. Kal-El is the rebooted Superman who began to appear in the 60s. Both the same person, but on parallel worlds.

 

At least, this is how I see Bond 

[tdalton]

 

Yes, Dr No - DAD happened.

In another universe, maybe. Think of Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan Bond as Kal-L, the Superman of Earth-Two. Craig Bond could be seen as Kal-El, the Superman of Earth-One. Kal-L was the original Superman who first appeared in 1938. Kal-El is the rebooted Superman who began to appear in the 60s. Both the same person, but on parallel worlds.

 

At least, this is how I see Bond 

 

 

That's more or less how I see it.  Same character, two different timelines or "cinematic universes", to borrow the Marvel terminology.  Either way, Dr. No through Die Another Day never happened for Craig's Bond.

[sharpshooter]

That's more or less how I see it.  Same character, two different timelines or "cinematic universes", to borrow the Marvel terminology.  Either way, Dr. No through Die Another Day never happened for Craig's Bond.

 

Yep. I don't have a hard time accepting it, either. And tdalton - love your new signature. Very nice.

[tdalton]

 

That's more or less how I see it.  Same character, two different timelines or "cinematic universes", to borrow the Marvel terminology.  Either way, Dr. No through Die Another Day never happened for Craig's Bond.

 

Yep. I don't have a hard time accepting it, either. And tdalton - love your new signature. Very nice.

 

 

Thanks.

 

I don't have a hard time accepting it either.  Actually, I think I'd have a harder time accepting it if they actually tried to tie Craig's Bond to the previous 20 films.  It would be a bit much to think of Craig's Bond going through missions such as those in Dr. No, Casino Royale, and Licence to Kill, and then also having gone through Moonraker and Die Another Day.

[Call Billy Bob]

I don't have a hard time accepting it either.  Actually, I think I'd have a harder time accepting it if they actually tried to tie Craig's Bond to the previous 20 films.  It would be a bit much to think of Craig's Bond going through missions such as those in Dr. No, Casino Royale, and Licence to Kill, and then also having gone through Moonraker and Die Another Day.

 

The one thing that solidifies the separation of the reboot for me is M. You can't go Dench, Lee, Brown, and then back to Dench!

[DaveBond21]

 

I don't have a hard time accepting it either.  Actually, I think I'd have a harder time accepting it if they actually tried to tie Craig's Bond to the previous 20 films.  It would be a bit much to think of Craig's Bond going through missions such as those in Dr. No, Casino Royale, and Licence to Kill, and then also having gone through Moonraker and Die Another Day.

 

The one thing that solidifies the separation of the reboot for me is M. You can't go Dench, Lee, Brown, and then back to Dench!

 

 

Yes but Dench confirmed that she was playing the same M in Casino Royale as she had played in Goldeneye and that Martin Campbell told her so.

 

So that is the only thing you have to forget about. 

 

I have no problem accepting the fact that when Bond saves Tracy from the water in OHMSS that he is thinking of how he couldn't save Vesper.

 

Each to their own, but one day a Bond movie is going to reference a past mission that involved Connery or Moore. It might be a knowing nod to fans but it will solidy my theory.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[sharpshooter]

Yes but Dench confirmed that she was playing the same M in Casino Royale as she had played in Goldeneye and that Martin Campbell told her so.

 

So that is the only thing you have to forget about. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I personally only view that in her approach to the character. Play it the same, but in a different timeline.

[DaveBond21]

Yeah, we all have our own ways of looking at it.

 

I think the casual movie viewer thinks of it all being the same, certainly my friends do. 

 

But like I said, all it takes is for Ralph Fiennes' M and Daniel Craig's Bond to have an "interesting time" in Tokyo and we know it's the time Bond mentions to Tatiana in FRWL.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

[Guy Haines]

I've believed since 2006 that the Daniel Craig films are a new set of Bond movies. They have some rather clever, and not so clever references back to the previous series from 1962 to 2002, a kind of nudge and wink approach, notably with the Aston Martin DB5. But they are not part of the same timeline, I think, as the previous movies - how can they be when we have Bond's first mission as a Double-O agent taking place in the first decade of the twenty first century?

 

The films are not remakes either, though they revisit a number of themes from the 1962-2002 films, notably Bond falling in love and losing his love to the villains and wanting, if not revenge, then closure.

 

What is different though is that the films seem more like sequels. QoS was a direct sequel to CR. We don't know for certain, but SP appears to follow in some ways from SF, and with the presence of Mr White indicates events from the first two Craig films may play a part. Will SP turn out to be an SF sequel? Possibly. Or it may be an attempt to tie up loose ends dating back to 2006.