Clan x86
General Forums => Entertainment District => Topic started by: deadly7 on November 14, 2008, 09:32:29 pm
-
was straight up god-awful.
-
I have been hearing that from a lot of people. i dont think i will be going out to see this.
-
I didn't think it was that bad. :-\
-
it was pretty good, imo. i went with a bunch of people and they all thought it was pretty good too.
I have been hearing that from a lot of people. i dont think i will be going out to see this.
every james bond movie is worth watching =p
-
it was pretty good, imo. i went with a bunch of people and they all thought it was pretty good too.
I have been hearing that from a lot of people. i dont think i will be going out to see this.
every james bond movie is worth pirating and deleting for disk space. =p
-
ehh i guess ill go check it out.
-
every james bond movie is worth watching =p
Lies. That's the kind of thinking that lets people make money off franchises that should have died years ago.
-
Lies. That's the kind of thinking that lets people make money off franchises that should have died years ago.
Casino Royale was, without a doubt, an amazing movie. So I went to see QoS. QoS was.. well.. not that good, simply put. =p We'll see what the 3rd one is like when it's released.
-
Meh, I enjoyed it. However, I'm not sure I would have so much if it weren't for Casino Royale.
-
Meh, I enjoyed it. However, I'm not sure I would have so much if it weren't for Casino Royale.
WTF i told you to call me.
-
Casino Royale was, without a doubt, an amazing movie. So I went to see QoS. QoS was.. well.. not that good, simply put. =p We'll see what the 3rd one is like when it's released.
I went to see Quantum of Solace last night with a few friends, and we all agreed that it was much better than Casino Royale. Casino Royale wasn't a horrible movie, but it wasn't that James Bond'ish. In Casino Royale, if Bond wasn't getting his ass kicked, he was playing poker. Whoopity doo.
In QoS, if James Bond wasn't kicking ass... wait, he was always kicking ass. :P
-
Casino Royale was, without a doubt, an amazing movie. So I went to see QoS. QoS was.. well.. not that good, simply put. =p We'll see what the 3rd one is like when it's released.
I went to see Quantum of Solace last night with a few friends, and we all agreed that it was much better than Casino Royale. Casino Royale wasn't a horrible movie, but it wasn't that James Bond'ish. In Casino Royale, if Bond wasn't getting his ass kicked, he was playing poker. Whoopity doo.
In QoS, if James Bond wasn't kicking ass... wait, he was always kicking ass. :P
That's the whole point: Casino Royale was intentionally atypical of the Bond motif. It was supposed to portray how he became James Bond, and in order to meet this goal it had to portray him before he became James Bond.
This is why Casino Royale is the best Bond film. Since it is unique among the 22 Bond films, the rest of which are more or less homogeneous, it either has to be the best or the worst, and it took a turn for the best.
-
every james bond movie is worth watching =p
Lies. That's the kind of thinking that lets people make money off franchises that should have died years ago.
You place too little value in tradition.
-
every james bond movie is worth watching =p
Lies. That's the kind of thinking that lets people make money off franchises that should have died years ago.
You place too little value in tradition.
No, I have little like for people who squeeze a franchise until it is dry as bone.
-
No, I have little like for people who squeeze a franchise until it is dry as bone.
Like the makers of SAW!
-
Meh, I enjoyed it. However, I'm not sure I would have so much if it weren't for Casino Royale.
WTF i told you to call me.
Apologies, but my seeing it last night was unexpected and very late.
-
No, I have little like for people who squeeze a franchise until it is dry as bone.
Like the makers of SAW!
I wouldn't say that Saw has done it, yet. 1 - 4 were excellent, no loss of quality whatsoever. 5 was a new writer/director, and it was weaker, but I'm willing to give them one chance.
-
No, I have little like for people who squeeze a franchise until it is dry as bone.
Like the makers of SAW!
I wouldn't say that Saw has done it, yet. 1 - 4 were excellent, no loss of quality whatsoever. 5 was a new writer/director, and it was weaker, but I'm willing to give them one chance.
Oh lord, are you serious? You think the fact that James Bond has a bunch of movies with some similar characters has murdered the franchise, whereas a 5 part series like Saw (which should have never really made it last a half of a film) is still fresh?
-
Oh lord, are you serious? You think the fact that James Bond has a bunch of movies with some similar characters has murdered the franchise, whereas a 5 part series like Saw (which should have never really made it last a half of a film) is still fresh?
To begin, I didn't use the word "fresh", and I wouldn't because it's too ambiguous. I also didn't say "murdered the franchise", again that's ambiguous and a loaded term. What I did say is that Saw hasn't lost any quality in the first 4 movies. I'll stand by that, although I probably wouldn't have the first time I saw them. I also said that they're trying to squeeze James Bond for all it's worth; since they're still making James Bond movies after nearly 50 years, and the only real relation between them is the names of the characters, I stand by that as well.
You obviously aren't a big fan of Saw, which is fine. But if you watch Saw II carefully, you'll see characters that ended up in Saw IV and Saw V present, and they aren't there by coincidence. Also, there are plot elements that you might overlook in earlier Saw movies that are explained in later ones. I could name a bunch of them, and a bunch of still unexplained stuff, but I won't. The point is, the Saw movies were designed to be a series, in a continuous world, and will end at a certain predefined time. Once everything is wrapped up, if they go back and add more sequels, I'll probably say the same thing.
I feel the same way about the Hannibal Lector movies -- if they want to keep making them, as long as they still fit into the overarching story, I'll be happy; but if they start adding sequels for the sake of adding sequels, I'll be upset.
I guess the main difference, to me, is that I don't mind having stories that span over multiple movies, if that's how it was written/designed. But I do dislike having sequels for the sake of having sequels.
-
Oh lord, are you serious? You think the fact that James Bond has a bunch of movies with some similar characters has murdered the franchise, whereas a 5 part series like Saw (which should have never really made it last a half of a film) is still fresh?
To begin, I didn't use the word "fresh", and I wouldn't because it's too ambiguous. I also didn't say "murdered the franchise", again that's ambiguous and a loaded term. What I did say is that Saw hasn't lost any quality in the first 4 movies. I'll stand by that, although I probably wouldn't have the first time I saw them. I also said that they're trying to squeeze James Bond for all it's worth; since they're still making James Bond movies after nearly 50 years, and the only real relation between them is the names of the characters, I stand by that as well.
You obviously aren't a big fan of Saw, which is fine. But if you watch Saw II carefully, you'll see characters that ended up in Saw IV and Saw V present, and they aren't there by coincidence. Also, there are plot elements that you might overlook in earlier Saw movies that are explained in later ones. I could name a bunch of them, and a bunch of still unexplained stuff, but I won't. The point is, the Saw movies were designed to be a series, in a continuous world, and will end at a certain predefined time. Once everything is wrapped up, if they go back and add more sequels, I'll probably say the same thing.
I feel the same way about the Hannibal Lector movies -- if they want to keep making them, as long as they still fit into the overarching story, I'll be happy; but if they start adding sequels for the sake of adding sequels, I'll be upset.
I guess the main difference, to me, is that I don't mind having stories that span over multiple movies, if that's how it was written/designed. But I do dislike having sequels for the sake of having sequels.
I think we differ there. I feel like, if the story is spanning over multiple movies, it's just a marathon that I don't want to keep watching. It's like watching the Titanic.. it just keeps going and going and you keep checking your watch, but you're only halfway in and it's already been 2 hours. FUCK!
However, with James Bond, the general theme is the same, but most of the plot is different. A spy movie? Awesome! However, that's where the similarities stop, and give way to something that's new and exciting. Whereas, if you keep adding on to the same plot, it's like the movie that just won't die. DIE ALREADY. DIE!!!!
I liked Saw I. I did. However, not enough to watch all of Saw II, or any of the rest. It just seems like, okay, the idea was interesting the first time, but I didn't expect to be watching this for entire days of my life.
-
No, I have little like for people who squeeze a franchise until it is dry as bone.
Like the makers of SAW!
I wouldn't say that Saw has done it, yet. 1 - 4 were excellent, no loss of quality whatsoever. 5 was a new writer/director, and it was weaker, but I'm willing to give them one chance.
Haha, I completely disagree. The saw series is garbage, in my opinion.
-
However, with James Bond, the general theme is the same, but most of the plot is different. A spy movie? Awesome! However, that's where the similarities stop, and give way to something that's new and exciting.
So basically, it's a bunch of movies with nothing (except a name and the occasional actor) alike, why do they have the same name?
Because it makes money.
-
However, with James Bond, the general theme is the same, but most of the plot is different. A spy movie? Awesome! However, that's where the similarities stop, and give way to something that's new and exciting.
So basically, it's a bunch of movies with nothing (except a name and the occasional actor) alike, why do they have the same name?
Because it makes money.
I've never seen a James Bond movie where the main character, Mr. Bond, was a drug dealer or a psycho mass murder of innocent civilians, or an internet pedophile. He's a spy, that's what is in common.
-
Because it makes money.
Yeah, that's definitely not the main focus of the saw series. :P
-
There are plenty of movies about spies, though. There are even a lot of movies about spies with cool gadgets.
-
There are plenty of movies about spies, though. There are even a lot of movies about spies with cool gadgets.
But every one of them you have to introduce characters and set up more plot. If you go with a basic theme that most people are familiar with already, it saves the film much needed time and allows it to have more opportunity for more important stuff.
-
There are plenty of movies about spies, though. There are even a lot of movies about spies with cool gadgets.
But every one of them you have to introduce characters and set up more plot. If you go with a basic theme that most people are familiar with already, it saves the film much needed time and allows it to have more opportunity for more important stuff.
Like car chases....and EXPLOSIONS!!!
-
There are plenty of movies about spies, though. There are even a lot of movies about spies with cool gadgets.
But every one of them you have to introduce characters and set up more plot. If you go with a basic theme that most people are familiar with already, it saves the film much needed time and allows it to have more opportunity for more important stuff.
Like car chases....and EXPLOSIONS!!!
AND SHOOTOUTS!
-
However, with James Bond, the general theme is the same, but most of the plot is different. A spy movie? Awesome! However, that's where the similarities stop, and give way to something that's new and exciting.
So basically, it's a bunch of movies with nothing (except a name and the occasional actor) alike, why do they have the same name?
Because it makes money.
I'd say there's a lot more in common between Bond films than that. He works for the British secret service, "MI6", he is always involving himself with the same people, he has a similar personality, there is an emphasis on the latest spy-gadgets he is using, etc, and the plots usually have a characteristic "Bond" quality (several love interests, many of who end up helping him in some way that is unconventional for a woman, the evil boss, the foreign intrigue, etc).
-
What gadgets did Bond have in QoS?
-
What gadgets did Bond have in QoS?
A hydrogen powered SUV!
-
Heh, that's my point. Bond movies never feel like continuations of other Bond movies. The lack of gadgets further made it feel less "Bond".
-
Heh, that's my point. Bond movies never feel like continuations of other Bond movies. The lack of gadgets further made it feel less "Bond".
The last Bond movie I saw was "The World is Not Enough". So I can't comment on the ones since then. But prior to that movie, there is absolutely and unquestionably a unifying theme throughout the series, in much the same way one can recognize a Sherlock Holmes story based on the character development, the plot, the narrative, the setting, etc., regardless of whether reference is made to past stories.
Also, the gadgets thing is obvious. I don't know about quantum of solace, but for crying out loud. They have a character devoted to introducing the latest Bond gadgets -- Q. He appears in every Bond film I've seen (pretty much every pre 2000 Bond movie).
-
QoS and Casino Royal were actually story sequels to each other, not just theme.
Q wasn't even in this movie. :(
-
That's because the actor who plays Q died several years ago.
-
That's because the actor who plays Q died several years ago.
The new Q didn't, though. He took over in one of the more recent movies. :colbert:
-
That's because the actor who plays Q died several years ago.
The new Q didn't, though. He took over in one of the more recent movies. :colbert:
That would be R, who was introduced by Q as his successor.
-
No, I have little like for people who squeeze a franchise until it is dry as bone.
Like the makers of SAW!
I wouldn't say that Saw has done it, yet. 1 - 4 were excellent, no loss of quality whatsoever. 5 was a new writer/director, and it was weaker, but I'm willing to give them one chance.
What kind of black-tar heroin are you injecting into your eyes!?
Excellent? pfft
-
I think both series are boring and uninteresting movies (bond and saw). Everyone has opinions, lets cry about it more.
-
I think both series are boring and uninteresting movies (bond and saw). Everyone has opinions, lets cry about it more.
If everyone took your philosophy then there'd still be slavery in the US. Sometimes there are "right answers". And yes, this applies to movies too. How else would they choose movies for Oscars?
-
I think both series are boring and uninteresting movies (bond and saw). Everyone has opinions, lets cry about it more.
If everyone took your philosophy then there'd still be slavery in the US. Sometimes there are "right answers". And yes, this applies to movies too. How else would they choose movies for Oscars?
My philosophy on movie opinions? k.
-
I think both series are boring and uninteresting movies (bond and saw). Everyone has opinions, lets cry about it more.
If everyone took your philosophy then there'd still be slavery in the US. Sometimes there are "right answers". And yes, this applies to movies too. How else would they choose movies for Oscars?
My philosophy on movie opinions? k.
"Everyone has opinions, lets cry about it more."
You have dismissed many arguments on this forum by statements similar to this. Usually you are far more economical and just say 'QQ'.
-
I think both series are boring and uninteresting movies (bond and saw). Everyone has opinions, lets cry about it more.
If everyone took your philosophy then there'd still be slavery in the US. Sometimes there are "right answers". And yes, this applies to movies too. How else would they choose movies for Oscars?
My philosophy on movie opinions? k.
"Everyone has opinions, lets cry about it more."
You have dismissed many arguments on this forum by statements similar to this. Usually you are far more economical and just say 'QQ'.
I (once) tried to diffuse an argument that was rapidly deteriorating into nothing but hostility and personal attacks which you had a very pointed opinion in, and you seem to have held that against me since. If I say 'QQ' to something I think it should be obvious to a troll such as yourself that I am not being entirely serious.
-
I think both series are boring and uninteresting movies (bond and saw). Everyone has opinions, lets cry about it more.
If everyone took your philosophy then there'd still be slavery in the US. Sometimes there are "right answers". And yes, this applies to movies too. How else would they choose movies for Oscars?
My philosophy on movie opinions? k.
"Everyone has opinions, lets cry about it more."
You have dismissed many arguments on this forum by statements similar to this. Usually you are far more economical and just say 'QQ'.
I (once) tried to diffuse an argument that was rapidly deteriorating into nothing but hostility and personal attacks which you had a very pointed opinion in, and you seem to have held that against me since. If I say 'QQ' to something I think it should be obvious to a troll such as yourself that I am not being entirely serious.
qq
-
Well played.
-
I think both series are boring and uninteresting movies (bond and saw). Everyone has opinions, lets cry about it more.
If everyone took your philosophy then there'd still be slavery in the US. Sometimes there are "right answers". And yes, this applies to movies too. How else would they choose movies for Oscars?
I fully endorse Hitmen's philosophy.
-
So.....I just watched QoS, and I still don't know what it's supposed to be about.
-
So.....I just watched QoS, and I still don't know what it's supposed to be about.