imfdb.org

imfdb.org (http://forum.imfdb.org/index.php)
-   Off Topic (http://forum.imfdb.org/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   New Video Games/ Movies (http://forum.imfdb.org/showthread.php?t=1091)

MT2008 11-02-2012 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swordfish941 (Post 36530)
I saw it, and it was pretty brilliant. And what do you mean by "the next Kenneth Branagh" (the only film of his I've seen is Thor).

Try watching some of Branagh's directorial efforts from the '90s (namely, "Henry V", "Frankenstein", and "Hamlet", among others), where he also plays the lead role. While I don't think he's a bad actor, he's far better as a filmmaker, and so many of his movies suffer for having him in the lead (IMO).

Sadly, Ben Affleck seems to be doing pretty much the same thing nowadays. I think when "The Town" came out, I complained that I wished Affleck had cast himself in Jeremy Renner's role, and vice-versa.

MT2008 11-02-2012 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 36502)
I think QoS suffered a lot following up Casino Royale, but I definitely wouldn't call it the worst. A View to a Kill?

And while we can argue about the results, I give the producers credit for trying to keep the franchise fresh.

When I said the "worst in memory", I meant within my own living memory. Although I was born in 1985, I'm not old enough to remember any 007 movies prior to "GoldenEye" (which is the first I saw in theaters). There are plenty of Bond movies I like less than "Quantum of Solace", but none within the last 20 years.

As for keeping the franchise fresh, this is a case of not all progress being good. My intuition is that the franchise is better served by directors who have demonstrated adeptness at directing quality summer action films rather than Oscar bait. Martin Campbell is exactly that type of director; Marc Forster and Sam Mendes are clearly not.

SPEMack618 11-02-2012 01:05 AM

With the exception of Moonraker or perhaps Octopussy, I couldn't stomach any of the Roger Moore films.

That being said, I liked both of the Timothy Dalton films.

funkychinaman 11-02-2012 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPEMack618 (Post 36608)
With the exception of Moonraker or perhaps Octopussy, I couldn't stomach any of the Roger Moore films.

That being said, I liked both of the Timothy Dalton films.

The Living Daylights was my first exposure to Bond, and I still really like it. But I read a few years ago that the script was originally written with Roger Moore in mind, and if you watch it again with that in mind, it all sort of makes sense, especially compared to how dark Licence to Kill was.

funkychinaman 11-02-2012 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MT2008 (Post 36607)
When I said the "worst in memory", I meant within my own living memory. Although I was born in 1985, I'm not old enough to remember any 007 movies prior to "GoldenEye" (which is the first I saw in theaters). There are plenty of Bond movies I like less than "Quantum of Solace", but none within the last 20 years.

As for keeping the franchise fresh, this is a case of not all progress being good. My intuition is that the franchise is better served by directors who have demonstrated adeptness at directing quality summer action films rather than Oscar bait. Martin Campbell is exactly that type of director; Marc Forster and Sam Mendes are clearly not.

I think the Bond franchise is one of the few that can afford to mix it up a bit. People are going to go see Bond films because they're Bond films, not because of who the director is. Besides, I don't know how good QoS could've been even with Martin Campbell at the helm.

Here's a hypothetical then: which Bon film would you rather see, one by Quentin Tarantino (who apparently has always wanted to do so) or one by established summer action movie director Michael Bay?

funkychinaman 11-02-2012 05:00 PM

I started playing Dead Island yesterday, thinking it'd be a quick zombie game. 11 straight hours later, I was barely into Act 2. I hate it when that happens.

k9870 11-05-2012 04:13 AM

so in ac3 im being chased by british guards and run into a patriot fort hoping they fight, but instead they team up on me?

MT2008 11-06-2012 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 36610)
I think the Bond franchise is one of the few that can afford to mix it up a bit. People are going to go see Bond films because they're Bond films, not because of who the director is.

While Bond films will probably always make money simply for being Bond films, regardless of who plays Bond or directs them, I should still hope that a desire to ensure quality entertainment is not too much to ask for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkychinaman (Post 36610)
Here's a hypothetical then: which Bon film would you rather see, one by Quentin Tarantino (who apparently has always wanted to do so) or one by established summer action movie director Michael Bay?

Bad comparison. I think Michael Bay should be banned from going anywhere near the director's chair, under any circumstances. That's like asking me whether I would rather eat a tasty, fresh piece of pie, or eat the flesh off my hand.

If you asked me whether I would prefer Tarantino to Martin Campbell, I would still say Campbell without thinking about it. Tarantino may be a talented filmmaker, but he is talented at making a certain type of movie. Bond movies are not, and should never be, anything like "Reservoir Dogs" or "Pulp Fiction".

SPEMack618 11-06-2012 06:26 AM

All a Bond movie needs is a villain who wants to destroy the western world, inept intelligence officials who doubt Commander Bond, a hot chick who may or may not be of use but should be required to have atleast three panty shots during the course of the movie, and a desperate attack by commandoes led by Commandr Bond who is armed only with a pop gun going up against guys with AKs.

I present you with the rough plots of Thunderball, Diamonds are Forever, Goldfinger You Only Live Twice, Octopussy, The World is Not Enough, The Living Daylights, which coincidentally I consider some of the better Bond films, excluding Goldeneye, which is my favorite simply because the Gitmo Marines don't arrive until after Bond has fought all the Janus mercenary hoardes with his mouse gun.

funkychinaman 11-06-2012 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPEMack618 (Post 36622)
All a Bond movie needs is a villain who wants to destroy the western world, inept intelligence officials who doubt Commander Bond, a hot chick who may or may not be of use but should be required to have atleast three panty shots during the course of the movie, and a desperate attack by commandoes led by Commandr Bond who is armed only with a pop gun going up against guys with AKs.

I present you with the rough plots of Thunderball, Diamonds are Forever, Goldfinger You Only Live Twice, Octopussy, The World is Not Enough, The Living Daylights, which coincidentally I consider some of the better Bond films, excluding Goldeneye, which is my favorite simply because the Gitmo Marines don't arrive until after Bond has fought all the Janus mercenary hoardes with his mouse gun.

Seriously, The World Is Not Enough? The one-two punch of that and Die Another Day actually sent the franchise to the canvas for four years.

BTW, QoS we better than those two by a long shot.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.