Page 3 of 6
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:11 am
by madpeople
Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Mar 8 2013, 10:02 AM) Except that Bond already owns the DB5 which he gets given by M and Q in the future, which happened in the 60s, and oh dear, I've gone cross-eyed.
Maybe this one gets destroyed, and the one they give him is a replacement. It's not like he's good at looking after cars
I just try to ignore the fact that there is newer stuff than in the old ones even though these supposedly happened before them. They have been avoiding using modern tech a bit though - his high tech gadget is a little radio for example.
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:40 am
by Raveen
Ok, so you're suggesting that the Judi Dench M recruits the Daniel Craig Bond and then dies.
Then all the other Bond films happen, so at some point the Judi Dench M comes back to life and loses a decade or so to run the Brosnan incarnation?
The only slightly plausible explanation is that James Bond is the codename for 007 and has been held by a number of different people over the years and even that'sbroken by Skyfall being Bond's home and his parents being called Bond.
Essentially, continuity is something that happens to other people and trying to pretend otherwise is laughable.
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:58 am
by FIZ
meh
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 2:53 pm
by madpeople
Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Mar 8 2013, 11:40 AM) Ok, so you're suggesting that the Judi Dench M recruits the Daniel Craig Bond and then dies.
Then all the other Bond films happen, so at some point the Judi Dench M comes back to life and loses a decade or so to run the Brosnan incarnation?
Yes, she died, then she got better
Or the later one was her twin sister, Or they're all clones, Or she met this man who lives in a blue phone box...
Yes, there are big continuity gaps. Like how the same character keeps changing appearance and getting older / younger. But the scene with secretary money penny and man M was clearly a nod at continuity with the old films that happen after this one.
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:30 pm
by tsubaki_sanjuro
Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Mar 8 2013, 08:13 AM) I broadly agree with Her Maj. I really enjoyed Casino Royal although I wasn't sure it was quite a Bond film, but it was a good film in it's own right. QoS was a disappointment of epic proportions to me, and only partially because of Phantom Menace syndrome.
Skyfall was, what? A sort of lame half way house between classic, campy Bond and the attempt at gritty Bond that premiered in Casino Royal. It doesn't help that it feels like there's at least one missing film between QoS and Skyfall in terms of the character arc. And Albert $#@!ing Fiunney as the ghillie? WTF? Don't you know any Jocks FFS?
Agri didnt realise until he watched QoS again that that the delightful Oona Chaplin (whose character married Robb Stark in GoT) is in it, as the receptionist at the hotel.
As for continuity of Bond - its the mistake of the makers even to suggest it, Bonds have never made any sense from one film to the next.
Also the scots should be punished for their antics, so the fewer of them on tv and film the better. They owe the world a huge debt for
Braveheart still.
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:32 pm
by Duckwarrior
Good film, but it annoys me immensely that they don't do the "James Bond will return in xxxxx" any longer.
Posted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:19 pm
by Heyoka
tsubaki_sanjuro wrote:QUOTE (tsubaki_sanjuro @ Mar 7 2013, 11:21 PM) no, john carter is that bad
No it isn't.
Unless you've read the books, in which case the pompous comparison comes into play and people hate it out of principle.
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:32 pm
by Adept
Heyoka wrote:QUOTE (Heyoka @ Mar 9 2013, 12:19 AM) No it isn't.
Unless you've read the books, in which case the pompous comparison comes into play and people hate it out of principle.
I've read the books, and liked it a lot. Maybe it's the other way around?
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:57 pm
by SgtMajor
Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Mar 9 2013, 05:32 AM) I've read the books, and liked it a lot. Maybe it's the other way around?
No, no. That's just because you are stupid.
Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:21 pm
by Raveen
This from the chap who could write the book on how to be a $#@!witted imbecile...