Frasier Online

Lil wrote:

Moon-Crane wrote:Composer John Barry dies aged 77

Top man.

God bless his family...poor man.

At least he had a decent innings, and left a great body of work that'll stand the test of time.

Moon-Crane wrote:

Lil wrote:

Moon-Crane wrote:Composer John Barry dies aged 77

Top man.

God bless his family...poor man.

At least he had a decent innings, and left a great body of work that'll stand the test of time.

Absolutely! He made brilliant work one could never match.

John Barry: The Memorial Concert.

Should be a decent gig, and Timothy Dalton will be there to do his bit.

............

--------

Nice to see that the next Bond outing, Skyfall, is finally into shooting after all the turmoil surrounding MGM.

With Sam Mendes at the helm, and Ralph Fiennes, Javier Bardem and Albert Finney amongst the cast, it's a promising starting point. Looking forward to October 2012 now - and the crazy rumours that'll surface along the way.

Yeah, I'm glad they finally have Skyfall underway too. I was afraid it was never going to be. I hope it's better than Quantum of Solace.

CatNamedRudy wrote:Yeah, I'm glad they finally have Skyfall underway too. I was afraid it was never going to be. I hope it's better than Quantum of Solace.

I liked QoS when i first saw it, then thought it was so-so on second viewing. But then i forgot about it for ages before seeing it on TV a couple of months back and i really enjoyed it. I guess i can understand people finding it a little cold for a Bond flick, but it didn't half motor along. I still prefer Casino Royale, of the two, as an overall film - but i tend to prefer the incredibly tight editing of QoS.

If they can carry on the general ruthless bastard feel, but make it a story involving a more experienced Bond with a couple of plausible gadgets and a properly employed Aston Martin, then i'll be happy.

I didn't like QoS because I found it boring and pointless. I loved Casino Royale.

I'll be happy with this next film as long as it has point to it! And also I would be much happier if they stopped trying to make Bond into Jason Bourne and just let him be Bond.

Oh well, I could see a point to it.

I've tried watching the Bourne films again since all the comparisons were made for QoS, and i don't particularly see it. I understand the same units were in charge of directing the actions sequences, but i didn't really get the same overall feel everyone seems to talk about.

For me, it's the lack of the cool gadgets and the humor (and not just in QoS, it's Craig's Bond in general). I see the character more of your run of the mill spy guy than the cool 007 that we had before. And it's not Craig's fault. He's done a great job with the role. It's the way they're writing Bond.

CatNamedRudy wrote:For me, it's the lack of the cool gadgets and the humor (and not just in QoS, it's Craig's Bond in general). I see the character more of your run of the mill spy guy than the cool 007 that we had before. And it's not Craig's fault. He's done a great job with the role. It's the way they're writing Bond.

Yeah i can agree with that. That's why i'm hoping they jump it on a bit so Craig gets a go at being the more experienced Bond - with the added confident swagger and touches of refinement. I certainly want a handy gadget and a car chase involving the Aston this time out

Skyfall trailer

I'm looking forward to it. I thought Casino Royale was great, enjoyed QoS (certainly didn't think it was as awful as many journos are now making out - the Guardian film 'expert' is a prick) and the Skyfall teaser trailer is intriguing enough.

Roll on November.

Moon-Crane wrote:Skyfall trailer

I'm looking forward to it. I thought Casino Royale was great, enjoyed QoS (certainly didn't think it was as awful as many journos are now making out - the Guardian film 'expert' is a prick) and the Skyfall teaser trailer is intriguing enough.

Roll on November.

Hmm, looks great. Not the typical Bond movie either I'd suggest. There are obviously some big set pieces in there but with Sam Mendes directing I expect a much more thoughtful Bond movie than we usually get. Looking forward to it.

Saw the "Skyfall" trailer when I saw "MIB 3." It definitely looks better than goddamn "Quantum of Solace."

It is half a century since the film franchise for the world's best-known spy began - and to mark his heroic efforts for his country, the Barbican Centre in London is celebrating by showcasing the design and style behind James Bond.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18727140
http://www.barbican.org.uk/bond/

Might try and get to this exhibition.

Moon-Crane wrote:

It is half a century since the film franchise for the world's best-known spy began - and to mark his heroic efforts for his country, the Barbican Centre in London is celebrating by showcasing the design and style behind James Bond.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18727140
http://www.barbican.org.uk/bond/

Might try and get to this exhibition.

There was a Bond exhibition in Leeds around 15 years or so ago that I managed to get to. Saw that mini plane from the opening sequence to Octopussy hanging from the roof and also Rosa Klebb's poison-tipped shoe from From Russia With Love. There was tonnes of other stuff too. That Barbican exhibition looks far more extensive though - definitely worth a look if you get the chance.

Lot of publicity for the new James Bond blu-ray box set. Can't believe they were even promoting it on the BBC's The One Show on friday.

Not long until Skyfall's cinema release now. Premier in Serbia on Oct 22nd. London Premier Oct 23rd and then general UK release on Oct 26th. US release date is Nov 9th.

Moon-Crane wrote:

CatNamedRudy wrote:For me, it's the lack of the cool gadgets and the humor (and not just in QoS, it's Craig's Bond in general). I see the character more of your run of the mill spy guy than the cool 007 that we had before. And it's not Craig's fault. He's done a great job with the role. It's the way they're writing Bond.

Yeah i can agree with that. That's why i'm hoping they jump it on a bit so Craig gets a go at being the more experienced Bond - with the added confident swagger and touches of refinement. I certainly want a handy gadget and a car chase involving the Aston this time out

But isn't Craigs Bond closer to the tone of the books? I've heard the books are a lot darker.

QoS was for me a bad film, but on the other hand I would say Casino was the best Bond film ever. I hope the rebooted franchise doesn't go back to the cheesey Bond motifs (bit dissapointed to see Craig holding that tiny pea-shooter gun in the posters - he looks bit idiotic).

I like the cheesy Bond cool gadget stuff. I've never read a Bond book so I don't know what he's like. All I know is that if I want to watch Jason Bourne, I'll watch a Bourne movie. I want my Bond to be Bond!

Hector wrote:But isn't Craigs Bond closer to the tone of the books? I've heard the books are a lot darker.

Yep, the books are more 'straight-laced' and darker. And he makes mistakes. Certainly more like Craig. I don't think the movies necessarily have to be at all like the books, though. The big screen persona is an organic version all of it's own.

QoS was for me a bad film, but on the other hand I would say Casino was the best Bond film ever. I hope the rebooted franchise doesn't go back to the cheesey Bond motifs (bit dissapointed to see Craig holding that tiny pea-shooter gun in the posters - he looks bit idiotic).

I think people are too harsh on Quantum. I've watched it a couple of times in the last couple of years and I'll defend it's postion. I think the action is excellent. And i even believe it works as a gateway to a more sure-footed, streetsmart, experienced Bond - a la Connery. Strangely, most critics were positive towards it on it's release, yet those same critics now throw mocking, derisory, remarks towards it and pretend to have always hated it.

As for Casino Royale - i certianly think it's a great film, but not the best ever.

There's a balance to be had with elements of Bond movie 'staples' to keep it being different from your average spy movie flick. I wouldn't call the likes of From Russia With Love, OHMSS, For Your Eyes Only or Goldeneye (to choose a single film from each of the previous Bond actors) particularly cheesey.

The biggest difference i've seen between book and film (although i've only read 3 Bond books to date) was Moonraker.

Completley different story.
The only two things the movie and the book have in common are that the good guy is called James Bond, the the bad guy is called Hugo Drax.

The movie..........



The book.............



I find the book more enjoyable.

I'm in the QoS sucked and Casino Royale was probably the best. Even though I'm not fond of Craig's Bond, I loved Casino Royale for the movie that it was.

My problem with QoS was that it seemed to me to be one long introduction to something that never seemed to happen. It bored me.

Forever Jung wrote::twisted: The biggest difference i've seen between book and film (although i've only read 3 Bond books to date) was Moonraker.

Completley different story.
The only two things the movie and the book have in common are that the good guy is called James Bond, the the bad guy is called Hugo Drax.

The movie..........

Spoiler: show

Some nutter has decided to take his own special master race to a space station, kill everyone on earth, sit around for a few years, then take his race of supermen/women back down to claim the planet.

The book.............

Spoiler: show

A nazi nutter who was injured in the war and mistaken for an allied soldier makes himself rich, and under the guise of test firing a new weapon that will protect England he secretly plans to launch it at London.
Going into space is never mentioned, and neither is creating a master race.
Far less gags and gadjets.

I find the book more enjoyable.

They did a parody of that on DS9 one of the spinoff(s?) of star trek and called it "Our man Bashir" In that version the nutcase takes his race of supermen to the top of mount Everest and is planning to drown the rest of world by "shrinking the earth's crust" by which allowing the oceans to cover the earth instead of four quarters of it (imagine how much smaller the earth would have to be in order for something like that to happen). (The science is of course outrageously wrong but it has the excuse of being a parody)