my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » James Bond collection $125 on Amazon today (Page 1)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: James Bond collection $125 on Amazon today Mike Heenan Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1896 From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 03-13-2007 02:03 PM                     The entire James Bond collection (minus the new Casino Royale) is on sale at amazon today for $125 for all 4 sets... not a bad deal  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-14-2007 12:29 AM                     quote: Mike Heenan minus the new Casino Royale Cheapskates... They should include that and dump Die Another Day.  |  IP: Logged Frank Dubrois Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 896 From: Cleveland, OH Registered: Mar 2005 posted 03-14-2007 01:41 AM                    I dont know about that. I JUST saw Casino Royale. What a mess. I don't like the "early" years of bond premise when they mention 9/11 in the movie. Where is Q? M basically in her lines...this movie was crap. Die Another Day...crap also, but at least it was REAL Bond.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-14-2007 06:21 AM                     Well I'm looking forward to seeing Casino Royale just the same. As far as Die Another Day goes though...in my opinion it was quite simply the dumbest and worst of the Bonds to date. It also had the worst ever theme song made EVEN WORSE by the end credit version of the song...I hardly believed it could have been done, but there it is.  |  IP: Logged Frank Dubrois Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 896 From: Cleveland, OH Registered: Mar 2005 posted 03-14-2007 02:42 PM                    I was looking forward to Casino Royale too. I heard it was cool, and gritty, and back to basics for Bond. It basically turned a great, fun series into another bull action movie. No gizmos, very few exotic locations...a real let down.  |  IP: Logged Mike Heenan Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1896 From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 03-14-2007 03:26 PM                     Hmm.... Bahamas, Madagascar, Uganda, France, Venice, nothing exotic there? Sure beats an ice castle in the middle of nowhere. Unfortunately back to basics means less gadgets... at least there was no silly invisible car or a killer laser beam from a satellite in outer space.  |  IP: Logged John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 03-14-2007 04:06 PM                     I don't remember seeing an invisible car.  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 03-14-2007 05:12 PM                     quote: John Wilson I don't remember seeing an invisible car. Just follow the tire tracks in the snow. You'll bump into it sooner or later. I'm with you Mike H. "Casino Royale" made me think of the early movies and Fleming books again (even with a misstep here and there). A refreshing breath of air compared to "Die Another Day" That was just the worst. And that laser-beam satellite--was that left over from "Diamonds Are Forever"?  |  IP: Logged Frank Dubrois Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 896 From: Cleveland, OH Registered: Mar 2005 posted 03-15-2007 02:37 AM                    Even the early Bond had Q. Q wasn't even MENTIONED in this movie. What was the big gadget in this movie? A defibrillator in the glove box...ooook. Pardons himself from the poker game, goes out to car, tries to jumpstart his heart, wakes up, walks back to the card game. I mean...cmon...how stupid was that? I agree that Die Another Day was crap, but this one WASN'T Bond in my opinion. This could have been made into another British spy movie with top notch results, but it ISN'T Bond. The franchise has made a history of using a certain type of formula, it works, why change?? I will watch the next Bond movie in anticipation of Q and SOME gadgets returning...By the way, anyone know what the next one will be called? Other than Bond 22?  |  IP: Logged Mike Schindler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1039 From: Oak Park, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 03-15-2007 02:44 AM                     quote: Frank Dubrois but this one WASN'T Bond in my opinion. This could have been made into another British spy movie with top notch results, but it ISN'T Bond. I think Ian Fleming would disagree with you. Like it or not, CASINO ROYALE is way closer to the source material than any of the other movies have been.  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 03-15-2007 06:18 AM                     quote: Frank Dubrois Even the early Bond had Q. Beginning the series, in "Dr. No," Bond is equipped by Major Boothroyd, as he was originally known in the books, and then only given his Walther PPK to replace his Beretta. Not too gadgety. He wasn't called "Q" in "From Russia With Love," either, but did give Bond a nifty briefcase with some handy gimmicks. It didn't become invisible, though. The formula that began with "Goldfinger" (in which Bond does address Major Boothroyd as Q) is successful, provided they don't get too carried away with the gadgetry. As for what is or is not Bond, fans of Fleming's books generally point to the less gadgety films as the more faithful adaptations, retaining Fleming's suspense. We all know Bond will survive, but it's much more exciting when he doesn't have a magic button to push (or is turned into a cartoon windsurfer). Casino Royale has the flavor of Fleming's books and the best of the early film series. Very Bond.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-15-2007 11:35 AM                     I'm not going to buy that big Bond collection for one very simple reason: I don't like all the James Bond movies. Some are very good while others don't need to be taking up space in my DVD collection. quote: Frank Dubrois Die Another Day...crap also, but at least it was REAL Bond. Frank, how old are you? Are you well under 20 years of age? I only ask because when it comes to James Bond movies, younger people are usually only used to whoever was playing James Bond as they were growing up. Are you only used to Pierce Brosnan playing James Bond? I was used to Roger Moore playing 007 when I was a kid, but quickly grew to appreciate Sean Connery as being the better Bond. The ONLY "real" James Bond story lines were those from Ian Flemming's novels. Casino Royale was the first of those novels by Flemming. Die Another Day was not written by Flemming. It was conjured up by others. It was the worst, most stinking pile of embarrassing shit in the entire Bond franchise. And I thought there was little way a Bond movie could be worse than the previous The World Is Not Enough featuring the acting "talents" of Denise Richards. Goldeneye was the only decent Bond movie starring Pierce Brosnan, and even that show was weak in certain places. There's been lots of other clunkers for Bond movies as well. Both of the ones starring Timothy Dalton were pretty forgettable, with License to Kill playing more like a Joel Silver produced Lethal Weapon installment, complete with an out of place score by Michael Kamen. Roger Moore's time in the Bond role was often hit and miss, The Spy Who Loved Me being the best of his bunch. Casino Royale is the best Bond movie made since that 1977 release. Sean Connery had fewer stinkers playing Bond, but then more of his Bond outings were based on Ian Flemming novels. I'm sort of hoping this "re-imaging" of James Bond (under a new movie studio, certain new producers and a new actor, Daniel Craig) will perhaps re-adapt a couple of Flemming's novels into better versions of already previously released Bond movies. Mookraker is obviously one choice. I think Diamonds Are Forever was the lesser of Connery's movies and could be dealt better justice in a re-make.  |  IP: Logged Frank Dubrois Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 896 From: Cleveland, OH Registered: Mar 2005 posted 03-15-2007 11:45 AM                    quote: Bobby Henderson The Spy Who Loved Me being the best of his bunch. I think that movie was the BEST Bond. I grew up in the Roger Moore era. I guess I am more accustomed to the suave classy Bond. i don't disagree that Craig is a good Bond, I like him in the role, I also appreciate Sean Connery. Pierce could have been an awesome Bond if he had better material to work with. Goldeneye was really the only good one he got to do. I am VERY glad that they seem to have gotten away from putting Hollywood celebrities in these movies. I was sick of seeing the likes of Denise Richards, Madonna, Hally Berry etc...Europeon models or exotic actresses seem to make the best Bond women. Same with the evil guys....NO celebrities. I just feel a few more gadgets would have been nice. Its the gadgets that separate Bond from the other spy movies....even if its just a really cool functional watch and a decked out spy car..THATS Bond. Anything else is simply a spy movie. I think I really would have enjoyed Casino Royale more if it was just an MI6 spy flick rather than a Bond movie. I just expect certain material in Bond movies, I didnt get it any of it here.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-15-2007 12:17 PM                     The problem is gadgets aren't what makes any spy movie, even if it is a Bond movie, any good. The strength of character, story line and actors' performances are what really make the difference. That's where Casino Royale was clearly superior to the last several Bond movie installments. Another problem with gadgets in movies is that too often the gadgets dreamed up aren't even practical or even possible to make. The scenes where "Q" does his bad comedy, running down the various gadgets also can harm the story line. Often it's too obvious a set up for the scene you know is coming later on where that gadget will just have to be used. I'll also say it is kind of a character let down for Bond to be saved by some computerized toy rather than getting out of a situation just by using his brains and brawn. If any kind of gadgets have to be involved, let it be something practical and realistic, as well as something that doesn't telegraph the damned storyline. Casino Royale at least had that, such as a very expensive sports car with a two-drawer glove box, featuring a computer networked defibrillator in one drawer and a Heckler and Koch USP .45 equipped with a suppressor in another drawer. That bit wasn't in the original novel either. Too much more added fluff and it would have veered the story too far away from the original material. If there's anything that Ian Flemming intended out of Bond, it wasn't an interest in gadgets, it was in having an interest for the "finer things," such as good clothing, exotic locals and well made martinis. Exotic women and very expensive settings do more to make a Bond movie feel like a Bond movie than having a drawn out deal with gadgetry.  |  IP: Logged Mike Schindler Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1039 From: Oak Park, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2002 posted 03-15-2007 12:32 PM                     I read a piece of some interview with Christopher Lee where he talked about hanging out with Ian Fleming and discussing the character of Bond in great detail. Lee said that based on those discussions, he could definitively say that Pierce Brosnan's portrayal of Bond was the closest to what Fleming intended. I also read somewhere that Fleming wanted James Mason to play Bond back in the day.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.