kbordson 8
Recommended Posts
jakee 1,254
Quote1 - Why was he just now getting his "00#"?
The James Bond timeline doesn't need to make sense - it wouldn't make sense even if it was still linear (Bond would be mid 70's). When George Lazenby took over from Connery in OHMSS the first scene included a wisecrack that 'This would never happen to the other guy.'
Quote2 - Where the hell was "Q"?
They needed to get away from all the gadgets for at least one film - unfortunately that meant leaving Q out as well. Still, its just not the same without Desmond Llewelyn anyway
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Quote3 - Where were the chicks swimming around for the intro?
4 - WTF were the cheesy assed bullshit cartoons - all I could see was some cheap rendition of a used up old "B" movie.
Totally, the starting credits (and song) were lame. Bring back the naked chicks!!
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
turtlespeed 212
Quote1 - Why was he just now getting his "00#"?
Because it's a 'prequel'. Are you serious?
If that were true, then it doesn't track with ANY of the originals. "M" wasn't female until MUCH later.
Quote
2 - Where the hell was "Q"?
No absurd gadgets, so no need for the absurd gadget-meister. And if Q had appeared, they'd have needed a different actor to play him. No way does John Cleese belong in that movie! I'll bet there's a Q in the next one, though.
That's like "Cheers" without Norm.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
ExAFO 0
The opening credits were a departure from the past, and therefore comparing them to the other movies is apples-to-oranges. I did like them, as they seemed a nod to the 1960s roots of the CR storyline.
Although the Audioslave opening song is awesome.
And...I will never buy real estate in Venice.
Although the Audioslave opening song is awesome.
And...I will never buy real estate in Venice.
Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.
jakee 1,254
Quote*SPOILER
Ok, in that case I also liked the way that they set up the favouritism that M has always shown for 007 - especially with Judi Dench in the Brosnan films. By having Bond be so stageringly arrogant in breaking into her house/ stealing her passwords etc. I think that shows why she goes on to have such affection for him. Everyone loves a rebel
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
jakee 1,254
QuoteI did like them, as they seemed a nod to the 1960s roots of the CR storyline.
True, and generally I do like those retro hitchcock style animated opening sequences (the on for Kiss Kiss bang Bang is awesome) but I just didn't think this one was done very well.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
turtlespeed 212
It reminded me of the "Incredibles"
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
ExAFO 0
How did Le Chiffre lose so much in the first place? He sold his stock (cash in hand), anticipating Airbus' stock to tank. When it did not, how is he out millions, having just liquidated his assets? Just buy the stock back, unless it spiked in price?
Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.
PhreeZone 15
He shorted it. Basically to short a stock you don't own the shares you borrow them from someone else. If you think a $50 stock is overvalued you short it and "borrow" the shares from someone else then sell them. When the stock drops to $25 a share you then buy enough to cover the amount that you've borrowed against.
Short a 100 shares at $50 and you sell it for $5000, it tumbles to $25 so you spend $2500 to buy up the shares you just borrowed against and you just made $2500 in profit.
Issue is if the stock goes up you now have to buy it at the higher price, not the initial price or the lower price that you were hoping for. Same 100 shares you shorted at $50 gave you $5000 cash now the stock climbs to $100 a share means you now lost $5000 since it takes $10000 to cover the costs just to buy the shares.
Short a 100 shares at $50 and you sell it for $5000, it tumbles to $25 so you spend $2500 to buy up the shares you just borrowed against and you just made $2500 in profit.
Issue is if the stock goes up you now have to buy it at the higher price, not the initial price or the lower price that you were hoping for. Same 100 shares you shorted at $50 gave you $5000 cash now the stock climbs to $100 a share means you now lost $5000 since it takes $10000 to cover the costs just to buy the shares.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery
Parachutemanuals.com
And tomorrow is a mystery
Parachutemanuals.com
Slappie 9
QuoteHe shorted it. Basically to short a stock you don't own the shares you borrow them from someone else. If you think a $50 stock is overvalued you short it and "borrow" the shares from someone else then sell them. When the stock drops to $25 a share you then buy enough to cover the amount that you've borrowed against.
Short a 100 shares at $50 and you sell it for $5000, it tumbles to $25 so you spend $2500 to buy up the shares you just borrowed against and you just made $2500 in profit.
Issue is if the stock goes up you now have to buy it at the higher price, not the initial price or the lower price that you were hoping for. Same 100 shares you shorted at $50 gave you $5000 cash now the stock climbs to $100 a share means you now lost $5000 since it takes $10000 to cover the costs just to buy the shares.
^ what he said.
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."
quade 3
QuoteSaw it a few days ago. Personally - there were a few things missing.
1 - Why was he just now getting his "00#"?
2 - Where the hell was "Q"?
3 - Where were the chicks swimming around for the intro?
4 - WTF were the cheesy assed bullshit cartoons - all I could see was some cheap rendition of a used up old "B" movie.
things that were cool -
The whole heart thing - that was pretty cool.
That's about it.
You seem to have missed the entire point this movie is making.
Over the course of the Bond series, it has become a cliche, hack, caricature of itself; resembling nothing even remotely found in the original novels.
Further, the Bond of the 70, 80 and 90s simply doesn't fit into the world we live in today. When Austin Powers skewered the Bond series it was right on target and I'm surprised it took the Bond people so long to figure it out.
Casino Royal is a new beginning of a new Bond series. Bond is actually a human that survives due to his intelligence, wits and fists not some crap assed wrist watch with a freekin' laser beam in it.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
PhreeZone 15
What I forgot to mention is that typically when in a single day $100 million is dropped into buying a stock that much activity triggers a buying frenzy. The thinking there is someone must know the stock is going up so others try to get in while they consider it "cheap" (Example here is Google, who would have thoguht it would be a bargin at 250 a share when it was first traded? 
) Or the other thing that can happen is a selling frenzy is started, that thinking is someone must be trying to short it so others try to also. Shorting a stock is risky but you can make a fortune at it and it needs to be done on margin usually. They even alluded to shorting of stocks when M was talking about the 9/11 airline stocks when they were in Bermuda.
It was implied that since the plane didn't blow up that the Skybus stock was set to take off once their prototype actually flew for the first time. If it climbed even a little bit then all the procedes were gone as well as a HUGE loss with that size of an order being placed.
) Or the other thing that can happen is a selling frenzy is started, that thinking is someone must be trying to short it so others try to also. Shorting a stock is risky but you can make a fortune at it and it needs to be done on margin usually. They even alluded to shorting of stocks when M was talking about the 9/11 airline stocks when they were in Bermuda. It was implied that since the plane didn't blow up that the Skybus stock was set to take off once their prototype actually flew for the first time. If it climbed even a little bit then all the procedes were gone as well as a HUGE loss with that size of an order being placed.
Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery
Parachutemanuals.com
And tomorrow is a mystery
Parachutemanuals.com
turtlespeed 212
Quote
You seem to have missed the entire point this movie is making.
Umm, No.
I caught it, I just didn't like it.
I liked the fantasy of the old movies. I like the gadgets. I liked the unrealistic side. If I wanted to watch "The Bourne (Next title)" then I would have gone expecting to see Matt Damon.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
Slappie 9
QuoteQuote
You seem to have missed the entire point this movie is making.
Umm, No.
I caught it, I just didn't like it.
I liked the fantasy of the old movies. I like the gadgets. I liked the unrealistic side. If I wanted to watch "The Bourne (Next title)" then I would have gone expecting to see Matt Damon.
I've got to disagree with you. This is a rebirth of the novels and the movies I enjoyed growing up. This is what Bond is about. Pure style, the ability to do what it takes to live and get the job done.
Daniel Craig pulled it off and I really hope he's able to pull off more. I can't wait for the next one.
"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."
Fast 0
QuoteQuoteQuote
You seem to have missed the entire point this movie is making.
Umm, No.
I caught it, I just didn't like it.
I liked the fantasy of the old movies. I like the gadgets. I liked the unrealistic side. If I wanted to watch "The Bourne (Next title)" then I would have gone expecting to see Matt Damon.
I've got to disagree with you. This is a rebirth of the novels and the movies I enjoyed growing up. This is what Bond is about. Pure style, the ability to do what it takes to live and get the job done.
Daniel Craig pulled it off and I really hope he's able to pull off more. I can't wait for the next one.
I am only 24 and wasn't around for the pre-brosnan days really. I have seen a lot of the movies though and this is a much better take on what I think bond should be. A lot of the brosnan movies made me really dislike the whole series. I mean, Denise Richards as a bond chick? Are you kidding me?
Up untill this point the bond movies have been much too campy for me to enjoy. This was much more literal and gritty. That is a feeling that I like from the bond series more than the campy humor and lack of on screen chemistry that the last few have had. I like to see things that might actually be doable. Put a few but limited things that my imagination has to reach to belive and it's ok, but if half the movie is crazy shit that could never happen, it because too much of a strech and I don't enjoy it as much.
As for no hot chicks in the opening scene, meh, I guess whatever. It didn't really bother me.
~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka
Douva 0
QuoteQuote
You seem to have missed the entire point this movie is making.
Umm, No.
I caught it, I just didn't like it.
I liked the fantasy of the old movies. I like the gadgets. I liked the unrealistic side. If I wanted to watch "The Bourne (Next title)" then I would have gone expecting to see Matt Damon.
Go watch From Russia with Love. I think that's the perfect mix. There are gadgets, but they're relatively simple and realistic. They fit perfectly into an excellent story with strong, well written characters. I think that's what the new Bond franchise should shoot for.
All movies are fantasy, but invisible cars racing space lasers to ice castles is a bit much for most Bond fans.
I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.
turtlespeed 212
It started to get bad even before moonraker.
FRWL is one of the best.
FRWL is one of the best.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
JohnRich 4
QuoteAwesome movie. Seen it twice now, just as impressive both times. 007 is the man.
Yeah, but that silly dancing penguin movie is still out-selling Bond at the box office. Go figure!
jakee 1,254
QuoteGo watch From Russia with Love. I think that's the perfect mix. There are gadgets, but they're relatively simple and realistic. They fit perfectly into an excellent story with strong, well written characters.
The only Bond film that really is a tense, plot driven spy thriller and it is one of the very best.
Not to say they have to be like that though - You Only Live Twice is one of my favourites and has the full on volcano base / space warfare / techno gadgetry stuff going on. I think the real problem with the latest Bond movies is that they got lazy. They couldn't be bothered to write good dialogue and measured plots to go along with the set piece action sequences.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
QuoteQuote
You seem to have missed the entire point this movie is making.
Umm, No.
I caught it, I just didn't like it.
I liked the fantasy of the old movies. I like the gadgets. I liked the unrealistic side. If I wanted to watch "The Bourne (Next title)" then I would have gone expecting to see Matt Damon.
If you get a chance, read the books and you will see that this film is more in line with what is in the books. Also in the same vein, read the Ludlum line of books to see what Bourne is really supposed to be like. Matt Damon IMO was the wrong person to play the part of Bourne.The Bourne series books were done an injustice with the way they wrote the film and with casting Matt D. as Bourne. CR is a fall back to the original since they couldn't secure the rights to it back in the day. It's much like the Star Wars series where the most recent ones are actually set before the original SW we saw back in the 80s. CR is how Bond became Bond and why he is the way he is in all the earlier films with Connery et all. The only hooky part was the whole instant blood toxicity testing/determination over the phone and the subsequent defibrillator scene. Other than that, the gadgets were fairly believable and didn't overshadow the Bond character which is what the whole movie is about really.
"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING
Yes.... she used him.
*SPOILER
She wasn't doing it for money or power or greed.... she was doing it because they were holding her so hostage.... and then at the end... she basically was agreeing to die to let James live. Not really a "bitch"
But I do understand his betrayal.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites