the vynsane asylum

Ran wrote:If I'm lucky. Might be 2011 since I'm 18-24 months behind the rest of the world on movies.

You should check out "The Dark Knight" next year sometime. It "wasn't bad" either.

Rollo Tomassi wrote:

Ran wrote:If I'm lucky. Might be 2011 since I'm 18-24 months behind the rest of the world on movies.

You should check out "The Dark Knight" next year sometime. It "wasn't bad" either.

I'll get right on that. That remindsme, I never saw Batman Begins.

The chick from Casino Royale was in a movie called "The Dreamers". She spent a fair amount of time in it without any clothes on. She looks skinnier in Casino Royale.

I had my kids for Spring Break last week, and I was playing Blood Stone for the XBox. (As an aside, Bloodstone is a kickass Bond movie in videogame form.) My son picked up the case and had no idea who or what a "007" was. I was all whaaa? So I popped in Casino Royale for them to watch. He's 8, she's 13. They loved it. So then we watched Goldeneye, Dr. No, and Living Daylights as I explained that James Bond has been around for so long that they've had several guys play him, and that when I was a kid, they basically had a different James Bond movie on every Sunday night (since we only had the three channels back then). I explained the "pre credit sequence", and all the tropes of the franchise (martinis, shaken not stirred, saying "Bond. James Bond" in each film, Ms. Moneypenny, Q's gadgets, etc). They concluded they liked Daniel Craig the best, and the other guys "weren't really James Bond". I let that slide about Sean Connery because, well, most people's "only" Bond is the first one their exposed to. And you can do worse than having Craig as your fave.

Anyway, my 8 year old now goes around the house humming the Bond theme. Add two recruits to the Bond fan club.

They just added a bunch of older Bond flicks to Netflix Watch Instantly today.

Awwwww yeah.




And fuck Sony and MGM and their bullshit legal hassles. You don't put the breaks on a successful relaunch of your biggest franchise for 4 fucking years. Dumbasses.

For some reason, we're getting free Encore channels. Anyway, they've been playing a bunch of James Bond movies. I've seen most of them at some point. A View to a Kill wasn't one of them. It was made in the mid-80s. Christopher Walken is the bad guy. I caught part of Wayne's World 2 on some other channel. Walken was in that one, too. Is it just me or has he always looked kind of old, yet somehow he still looks the same?

Walken's first 'big' movie was Deer Hunter in 1978 and he was already 35 when that came out. It's hard to believe he's almost 70.

I like the Daniel Craig Bond movies as movies go but I wish they were period correct to the books. I think when Craig has had enough of the role it'll be time to start over and possibly have a series that's more book accurate. Mad men has the right look and I reckon audiences would accept a classic looking Bond in a world without fantastic gadgetry and fewer massive set pieces and explosive stunts. We have Michael Bay and James Cameron for that kind of movie. And Bond doesn't really fit in the modern world. It's all been wrong since Roger Moore.

There was a hint of 60s Bond in Fassbender's Magneto in X-Men:First Class.

But I sincerely doubt Michael Wilson and Babs Broccoli would ever be brave enough to reboot the Bond franchise as a period piece. The most we can hope for is a continuation of the current trend to downplay the Q gadgets and keep up the ice cold badassery of Craig's 007. The real travesty is that Sony and MGM dicked around in court for four years and we missed out on two potential Bond flicks with Craig. He's not getting any younger.

Daniel Craig says he's happy to accept the paycheck for these movies over and over so I doubt he's going anywhere for some years. Plus Fleming's Bond was a man who was feeling the pinch of age and sensing that his time as an agent was nearing its end. I've just watched the international trailer. Javier Bardem looks very weird with blond hair. Bond gets his kit off more than once. car chases, explosions, gravity defying stunts, talky bits, expensive looking locations. It's all there in spades as we'd expect. Bond sheds tears in a manly way. I guess someone stirs his Martini.

Maybe there could be room for an alternate Bond. Serialised for TV? It wouldn't bite into the movie franchise then. A BBC/HBO/any foreign broadcaster with money collaboration. I could see that working.

There is no way tv would ever do Bond right. It would end up as a crappy villain of the week show, rather than a season long storywith AMC or HBO writing/production values.

Bond on tv was already done, it was called "24".

jjreason wrote:Bond on tv was already done, it was called "24".

And if you gave James Bond a vagina, it was "Alias".

But, when both of those shows we're at the top of their game, they were excellent shows. I would not hesitate in recommending either of them to someone who hadn't seen them.

"[W]hen both those shows we are" makes no damned sense, Rollo.

Goddamnit. Fuck you, Autocorrect. Whoever designed that program should be neutered. I end up back tracking and "fixing" it's "corrections" more than it fixes mine.