Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Daniel Craig's 3rd effort as Bond.






24mTIE4D9JM

Dope.

Loved CR and really enjoyed QoS.

this looks highly entertaining

Originally posted by Darth Martin
This looks dope. Looks to be taking a much more darker approach.

Originally posted by Robtard
really enjoyed QoS.

Same here, Despite alot of the critics bitchin about it wasn't that great.

Meh, I liked CR, but QoS was terribad. Not really a fan of "realistic" and "dark" Bond, it totally destroys who James Bond is and what its about.

Originally posted by Placidity
Meh, I liked CR, but QoS was terribad. Not really a fan of "realistic" and "dark" Bond, it totally destroys who James Bond is and what its about.

The real question is whether James Bond is no longer a valid character/franchise in this day & age?

Originally posted by Placidity
Not really a fan of "realistic" and "dark" Bond, it totally destroys who James Bond is and what its about.

Have you read any of Fleming's novels?.....if you have then yeah you can tell that's where their getting the "realistic" side of things.

Thought Casino Royale was great, but really disliked Quantom of Solace. Hoping this is more like the former...

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
The real question is whether James Bond is no longer a valid character/franchise in this day & age?

I always think that is a poor argument. I find it to be a really cliche and annoying phrase. What does it even mean? Some of the best movies were made many decades ago and are still recognized as such today.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Have you read any of Fleming's novels?.....if you have then yeah you can tell that's where their getting the "realistic" side of things.

No I haven't and most people haven't either, and that's not the Bond they know. But they do know the outstanding legacy the old Bond has left behind - something I guarantee you "realistic" Bond will never achieve.

I hope this "realism" fad will pass on soon. I don't have a problem with "realistic" movies, like the Bourne franchise, one of my favorites, but I hate it when they apply it to characters that were meant to be fantastic. It seems being "dark" and "edgy" automatically gives you cool points these days.

I feel like I repeat myself every time a Craig Bond movie comes out...

Can't wait for this one. I'm just sorry that it's Craigs last time as, Bond. Casino Royale is my favorite, Bond film. Quantum of solace was good, as well. It wasn't better than Casino, but it never tried to out do its predecessor.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
The real question is whether James Bond is no longer a valid character/franchise in this day & age?

Valid? Of course he's valid. I'd say, Now, more so than ever.

Originally posted by Placidity
No I haven't and most people haven't either, and that's not the Bond they know. But they do know the outstanding legacy the old Bond has left behind - something I guarantee you "realistic" Bond will never achieve.

I hope this "realism" fad will pass on soon. I don't have a problem with "realistic" movies, like the Bourne franchise, one of my favorites, but I hate it when they apply it to characters that were meant to be fantastic. It seems being "dark" and "edgy" automatically gives you cool points these days.

I feel like I repeat myself every time a Craig Bond movie comes out... agreed, but only to a point.

I thought the whole dark and gritty thing was only going to stick around for 1 or 2 movies because he was new at being 007 and hadn't yet transformed into the smooth character we had come to know; but it seems as if that's just who this Bond will be... a tough, gritty, in your face 007.

It's a rather cool change of pace from the previous 007's, but i also kinda prefer the character to be suave and stealthy. *shrug*

Originally posted by marwash22

I thought the whole dark and gritty thing was only going to stick around for 1 or 2 movies because he was new at being 007 and hadn't yet transformed into the smooth character we had come to know; but it seems as if that's just who this Bond will be... a tough, gritty, in your face 007.

Yup. that is why I find CR acceptable.

The other point is Bond needs a fantastic memorable villain. CR was weak in this department, but at least the guy had a bleeding eye.

In QoS, the villain was someone trying to control the water supply...really?

Bond has and always will need a fantastic villain. Imagine Bourne instead of fighting realistic assassins, fights Dr. No instead, it's just as ridiculous.

Also, where are the gadgets and tech? Where is that sense of adventure from the Connery Bond (and all other ones really)?

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
this looks highly entertaining

agreed.I am really excited about this movie.If the movie lives up to the trailer,this is going to be a great film.

Originally posted by Placidity
Meh, I liked CR, but QoS was terribad. Not really a fan of "realistic" and "dark" Bond, it totally destroys who James Bond is and what its about.

I like the idea of a realistic and dark appraoch to it.James Bond has been done to death with so many silly chase scenese and car chases where your thinking to yourself-de je vu because its been done to death.I personally with they had ended the Bond franchise wafter Moore retired.I mean whats the plan,keep on making James Bond films as long as the world is here and hollywood can make films?

there comes a point to where it becoame rediculous and they pretty much passed that point a long time ago. so since they HAVE chosen to keep making themI like the idea that they are at least trying something different with a darker and more realistic approach.


jinXed by JaNx wrote-

Can't wait for this one. I'm just sorry that it's Craigs last time as, Bond. Casino Royale is my favorite, Bond film. Quantum of solace was good, as well. It wasn't better than Casino, but it never tried to out do its predecessor.


thats a false rumor that got around that this is going to be Craigs last Bond movie.Expect to see him in four more Bond films after this one.



http://www.sheknows.com/uk/entertainment/articles/956229/daniel-craig-wants-to-do-four-more-bond-films

Originally posted by -Pr-
Thought Casino Royale was great, but really disliked Quantom of Solace. Hoping this is more like the former...

ralph feinnes presence intrigue me.. plus, i read the trail breakdown in total film, looks really enjoyable..

Originally posted by Placidity
Yup. that is why I find CR acceptable.

The other point is Bond needs a fantastic memorable villain. CR was weak in this department, but at least the guy had a bleeding eye.

In QoS, the villain was someone trying to control the water supply...really?

Bond has and always will need a fantastic villain. Imagine Bourne instead of fighting realistic assassins, fights Dr. No instead, it's just as ridiculous.

Also, where are the gadgets and tech? Where is that sense of adventure from the Connery Bond (and all other ones really)?

You've just answered my question of whether Bond is still valid today...leaning towards the negative.

I mean you can easily believe that Bourne is on the run from the CIA searching for his true identity & make a franchise out of the notion.

The same with Mission Impossible tracking down terrorists & Ethan Hunt's arsenal of high tech gadgets.

You put those same gadgets in any current Bond movie & people will ***** about already seeing it in another movie.

As far as Bond needing a fantastic villain?
Seriously, in this day & age, are we meant to feel threatened by villains who call themselves Dr No., Mr. Big, GoldFinger, SPECTRE, THE UNION, BrokenClaw or General Brutus?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn

As far as Bond needing a fantastic villain?
Seriously, in this day & age, are we meant to feel threatened by villains who call themselves Dr No., Mr. Big, GoldFinger, SPECTRE, THE UNION, BrokenClaw or General Brutus?

I dunno, how about Loki? Joker Maybe? No Bane sounds good.

Bourne was created to be a realistic movie. Bond wasn't ever meant to appeal to reality. "this age" argument doesn't work, we still have many films with fantastic elements to it that are very successful. Just because 007 took the direction towards realism, it is not in itself a justification that it would've failed otherwise. I and many others would totally watch a film with Connery if he was able to age backwards and deliver a film with the style similar to the originals. Of course there needs to be some evolution to current times, but that requires smart writers and director to pull off. Going realistic is just the easiest way out.

Casino Royale was great, But I disliked Quantom of Solace. So I don't know if I'll see the next one

Originally posted by Placidity
I dunno, how about Loki? Joker Maybe? No Bane sounds good.

Bourne was created to be a realistic movie. Bond wasn't ever meant to appeal to reality. "this age" argument doesn't work, we still have many films with fantastic elements to it that are very successful. Just because 007 took the direction towards realism, it is not in itself a justification that it would've failed otherwise. I and many others would totally watch a film with Connery if he was able to age backwards and deliver a film with the style similar to the originals. Of course there needs to be some evolution to current times, but that requires smart writers and director to pull off. Going realistic is just the easiest way out.

Loki is based on Norse mythology not a made-up villain name.
You might as well say, all foreigners have funny names.

The Joker. Well knowing what's he's sadistically capable of doing & how his "jokes" tend to be on the violent side, I'd be more fearful of a villain calling himself "The Joker" than I would be of Dr. No.

As for Bane. The meaning says it all. He is the cause of Batman's misery. The dictionary also states it's a noun for "killer" or "murderer". Bane was created simply to destroy Batman not seek world domination.

"Going realistic" is simply just one means to make the audience relate better to the character by introducing current politics, conflicts & present technologies available into the story. It makes things more credible.

A younger Connery won't save the Bond franchise when it's up against Mission Impossible or the Bourne series. It would be like being disappointed in seeing The Rolling Stones play now compared to 30 years ago when they were in their prime.
So yeah, even nostalgia for past actors who played Bond or pining for childhood memories won't save this franchise.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Loki is based on Norse mythology not a made-up villain name.
You might as well say, all foreigners have funny names.

The Joker. Well knowing what's he's sadistically capable of doing & how his "jokes" tend to be on the violent side, I'd be more fearful of a villain calling himself "The Joker" than I would be of Dr. No.

As for Bane. The meaning says it all. He is the cause of Batman's misery. The dictionary also states it's a noun for "killer" or "murderer". Bane was created simply to destroy Batman not seek world domination.


You didn't feel silly coming up with justifications how each is perfectly "valid", yet trying to maintain a similar rationale is impossible for James Bond? I could come up with another few pages of names, wanna go at it? The point actually wasn't what the names were, but the characters themselves. But Okay, seeing how you are utterly convinced you are right no matter what, you are entitled to your opinion.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn

A younger Connery won't save the Bond franchise when it's up against Mission Impossible or the Bourne series. It would be like being disappointed in seeing The Rolling Stones play now compared to 30 years ago when they were in their prime.
So yeah, even nostalgia for past actors who played Bond or pining for childhood memories won't save this franchise.

Funny how you mention Mission Impossible, where it's anything but realistic, yet still successful. Maybe the next Mission Impossible reboot it should be about how they need to stop some guy from making a profit, no more tech or gadgets, no more masks. Then someone with your logic would come in and conclude because if a new movie actually used whatever that defined it in the first place, it would totally fail. Realism is the only way now.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn

it's up against Mission Impossible or the Bourne series.

It all hinges on what other movies are out? Lol. Not only is that a completely unfounded claim, those two franchises are completely different, and don't hold a candle to James Bond's legacy - a character and style that was established over 50 years and 20 movies. I think I'm inclined to believe it has proven itself over the ages, rather then some unfounded assertions by a "expert commentator" on why James Bond would've failed if done any other way.

Originally posted by marwash22


It's a rather cool change of pace from the previous 007's, but i also kinda prefer the character to be suave and stealthy. *shrug*

This Bond is both suave and stealthy, he's just also more likely to punch you in the throat and throw you off a balcony.

are you two guys aware that this is the JAMES BOND thread,not THE DARK KNIGHT VS THE AVENGERS thread?

they're debating the goofiness of James Bond villain names...

Originally posted by marwash22
they're debating the goofiness of James Bond villain names...

Originally posted by marwash22
they're debating the goofiness of James Bond villain names...


Hey I can't masturbate at work so I debate instead.

Originally posted by Placidity

It all hinges on what other movies are out? Lol. Not only is that a completely unfounded claim, those two franchises are completely different, and don't hold a candle to James Bond's legacy - a character and style that was established over 50 years and 20 movies. I think I'm inclined to believe it has proven itself over the ages, rather then some unfounded assertions by a "expert commentator" on why James Bond would've failed if done any other way.

You know what, I'm betting this will be the very last Bond movie we'll see.
You're right about legacy & "proven itself over the ages", you're absolutely right in referring to Bond in the past tense.

No one can argue that James Bond was a male chauvinist that might've been appealing on the screen 20 or 50 years ago on the big screen but tell me exactly what audience market wants to see that, here & now?

Originally posted by marwash22
they're debating the goofiness of James Bond villain names...


...and how many RPGs does it take to kill one.

Originally posted by Placidity
No I haven't and most people haven't either, and that's not the Bond they know. ............ I don't have a problem with "realistic" movies, like the Bourne franchise, one of my favorites, but I hate it when they apply it to characters that were meant to be fantastic. It seems being "dark" and "edgy" automatically gives you cool points these days.


Yeh, I see your point here too. I would dare even say that the vast majority of 007 fans have never read a novel. I started reading 'Casino Royale' in school and was bored to death with it, so I was reluctant when I was introduced to the films.
I am now a 007 fan, but of the film Bond. Sure, FRWL and LTK are leaning more in the 'reality' direction I guess, but they still have that spark of fun and wit.
I will admit that spark and wit was somewhat overdone and almost made the films too self aware in Moore's era, most (not all, 'The Spy Who Loved Me' and 'For Your Eyes Only' are two of the best 007 films) are so fantastic and humour filled they are almost spoofs - sorry Roger, but only the aforementioned two get any playtime in my house.

Now, being edgy to score points, well, I do agree it comes across as a fad in Hollywood at the moment.
I do have to say I am not a fan of the new direction or of Craig in the role. The franchise has lost me for now, but many like it and thats what counts in the end - its making money!

Originally posted by Esau Cairn

You're right about legacy & "proven itself over the ages", you're absolutely right in referring to Bond in the past tense.


Nice argument or should I say, lack of. Again making baseless assertions.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn

No one can argue that James Bond was a male chauvinist that might've been appealing on the screen 20 or 50 years ago on the big screen but tell me exactly what audience market wants to see that, here & now?

We were discussing Bond in terms of realism, villains etc. I'm going to assume this is the only point you have, which is irrelevant.

Feel free to make more baseless assertions though.

vgr2syY_OU4

I think this one has great potential. Brosnan killed in Goldeneye, then was put in so-so storylines from then on, though Die Another Day was pretty good as well. I'm hoping this can be a good bookend for Craig.

As to villains, every modern Bond film has for the most part produced an enjoyable foil to Bond without resorting to silliness like claws for hands or golden guns. They've managed to keep it realistic yet give each some traits that make him or her hard to take down.

Looking forward to Skyfall, hoping it doesn't suck as hard as QoS (one of the all time worst Bond films ever).

Bond remains relevant, there's really nothing 'dated' about him exactly, more about the way he's brought across. Craig's interpretation of a rough military bloke working intelligence and being a very "blunt instrument" is a great way to approach a thorough reboot.

They chose Casino Royale to reintroduce Bond, to move away from the Moore camp-y Bond and the cheesy Brosnan Bond. And now that he's getting into the swing of things, he'll ease up a little, loosen up and become a bit more cynical in his relations with women ... He got his revenge, he experienced betrayal and he's now a confirmed 00... The rest will come together in time.

Personally, I think they missed an opportunity to take JB in this direction with Timothy Dalton - he is an excellent actor and TLD was a very good Bond film - ruining him (and Bond) with the farcical Licence To Kill.

Bond, MI5/6, terrorism, the current fad of over-turning foreign governments by covert means (arming and training so-called 'rebels') these all pretty much fit together.

The problem lies in trying to give Bond anything like moral authority. He works for the empire, he is basically Darth Vader, the biggest gun the Empire has. Bourne simply chose to play rebel, so he was easy to side with, Ethan Hawke and the MI crap is just Tom Cruise doing the US PR thing - nobody gives a shit for those films nor were they ever anything more than risible, from premise to execution.

Another approach is to go murky and have no moral authority, merely emotional attachment and lots of immediate threats - like Jack Bauer faces in 24. His agency are as bad as the threats he usually deals with, they are often complicit and his methods as outright fascistic as any tyranny you can imagine, but he's always saving someone and he's got a pretty daughter and we connect with him, not his masters, so that sort of makes the other stuff unimportant.

Originally posted by Kazenji
vgr2syY_OU4


Looks absolutely like it's going to be the balls. Probably the movie I want to see most now (8-12 2012) save The Hobbit.

Originally posted by janus77
Looking forward to Skyfall, hoping it doesn't suck as hard as QoS (one of the all time worst Bond films ever).

Whoa, bro. Isn't that a little harsh? Have you not seen Die Another Day...? That one was godawful. lol

Lovely, lovely! I have hopes for this one to rise into the golden few Bond films that stand the test of time.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Whoa, bro. Isn't that a little harsh? Have you not seen Die Another Day...? That one was godawful. lol

Tomorrow Never Dies wasn't exactly a vision of cinematic perfection itself, but yes, QoS was even worse in terms of being empty in its overall story. It just felt like something tossed out for the sake of doing it with a bit of Bourne-esk hand-to-hand thrown in to try and keep it relevant.

Anyone else seeing a pattern:

The Living Daylights, pimpin; License to Kill, serviceable.

Goldeneye, great modern Bond; TND & DAD, not so much.

Casino Royale, another great reboot; QoS, drivel.

Trailer featuring Adele's song

TOoPjeh_vkE

OMG GORGEOUS!!
I'm so glad they picked Adele.

He will rock this time .. do not worry

Apparently there's a homoerotic scene between Craig and Bardem.

Daniel Craig has given new brutal face to James Bond. There was no other lethal James bond like him.

What's the deal with all the bot accounts from India.

Just saw this in the theater....

This was clearly different from the "old" 007 movies. In this 007 is shown as a mortal man. He actually gets shot and sinks into a self pity. And worst of all he forgets to shave...

Our theater asked viewers not to disclose too much of the plot in the media so I'm going to honor that. I'll just state that this is a really good movie. Worth of your time even if you are not a 007 fan.

Originally posted by Robtard
Apparently there's a homoerotic scene between Craig and Bardem. I hope so.

The marketing for this film has been insane. TV ads everywhere on every channel. Trailers and product ads.

Any word on that homoerotic scene?

yes umm nice screen savers..

I heard about Javier's Bardem character for this movie, There's something he goes on about in this he's pretty much right and you agree with him.

I think Daniel Craig is not suited perfectly for Bond movies......he had given two flops in bond series then why want to try another movie with him truly foolishness....

Get Free Site Builder with Unlimited Hosting
Search in Yahoo & Find Us - Hosting Raja

Originally posted by Mindset
Any word on that homoerotic scene?

Bardem has Craig tied up and physically flirts with him. Bardem says something like "None of your training has prepared you for this has it" to which Craig just keeps his cool and says "what makes you think I never have" - referring to possibly having had homosexual experiences in the past."

Great Movie btw. I wasn't too fond of DG being Bond in the past. But I've warmed up to him now.

I actually enjoyed it, and I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've ever seen James Bond actually get shot, I'm not counting you only live twice cause that was to fake his death and him getting shot isn't spoiler worthy cause it's in a trailer

I was surprised by the ending but at the same time saw some bits kinda coming from a mile away and I enjoyed the new Q quite a bit as well

Just saw this at 12:07 today to start off my birthday.

It was fun. Great cinematography and exotic locations that looked amazing in Imax. But making the villain somewhat queer kind of ruined his menace factor and there was a severe lack of hot Bond-girl appeal in the movie. There were some neat surprises, but also some of the oldest tricks in the book that you could see from a mile away. Casino Royale still rules all.

I give it a 6/10.

I like how he got angry when they blew up the aston martin, like everything else he's ok with but they go and do that and he just goes full on rage

I liked it.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Just saw this at 12:07 today to start off my birthday.

It was fun. Great cinematography and exotic locations that looked amazing in Imax. But making the villain somewhat queer kind of ruined his menace factor and there was a severe lack of hot Bond-girl appeal in the movie. There were some neat surprises, but also some of the oldest tricks in the book that you could see from a mile away. Casino Royale still rules all.

I give it a 6/10. So you give the movie a D?

facepalm

Originally posted by Mindset
So you give the movie a D?

facepalm

I thought about it a little more and I might change that to a 6.5/10.. MAYBE 7/10. I almost forgot about the komodo dragon scene. That was awesome. But yeah, I'm not a huge Bond fan, quite frankly. And some stuff was the oldest shit in the book, like when James bond sinks down into the water as if we think he died, and then he puts the knife in the guys back. Totally didn't see that coming from a mile away. But I guess James Bond films aren't there for their originality. That and it needed more hot Bond-chicks and less M.

I was never under the assumption he died. He swam down to get the guy's flare(thought he was going to get his gun ), then he found the hole they'd fallen in. I knew he got out.

Originally posted by Mindset
Any word on that homoerotic scene?
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/30025935.jpg

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I thought about it a little more and I might change that to a 6.5/10.. MAYBE 7/10. I almost forgot about the komodo dragon scene. That was awesome. But yeah, I'm not a huge Bond fan, quite frankly. And some stuff was the oldest shit in the book, like when James bond sinks down into the water as if we think he died, and then he puts the knife in the guys back. Totally didn't see that coming from a mile away. But I guess James Bond films aren't there for their originality. That and it needed more hot Bond-chicks and less M. We weren't meant to think he died. I don't see how or why anyone would think he died.

Apart from killing of M, I don't see much of a plot or storyline behind this movie.

Thanks for the spoiler asshat.

Are you saying it should have more than one plot?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Thanks for the spoiler asshat.
Huh? With its whole wiki summary being filled up, I thought it was fairly common knowledge by now .

Originally posted by Nephthys
Thanks for the spoiler asshat. You should probably stay out of a thread about a movie you haven't seen that has been released for ~3 days now if you don't want to get spoiled.

Just saiyan.

I just wanted to know if the film was good or not and if it was worth my time seeing it tomorrow. That's what these threads are usually for. But hey, thanks for spoiling the movie brah!

Spoiler tags are a feature for a reason. Use them.

Spoiler tags are for cowards.

If you want reviews go to imdb.

saw this earlier.. i liked it.. javier bardem was funny throughout.. Craig is good as Bond

Originally posted by Mindset
We weren't meant to think he died. I don't see how or why anyone would think he died.

I actually meant that as sarcasm. Of course he didn't die. That's not the point, the point is he arrives and puts the knife in his back. Seen that a million times in movies/tv. Oldest trick in the book. It's usually done by more minor characters, but still.

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Apart from killing of M, I don't see much of a plot or storyline behind this movie.

It was a vengeance storyline, plane and simple. Kind of refreshing for that in a Bond movie. For once, the villains come after the agency rather than vice versa.

I give the movie somewhere between an 8 and an 8.5. Potentially in my top 5 Bond films. The final act was pure entertainment, and the rest of the movie was filled with very Bond-like moments.

Originally posted by Nephthys
I just wanted to know if the film was good or not and if it was worth my time seeing it tomorrow. That's what these threads are usually for. But hey, thanks for spoiling the movie brah!

Spoiler tags are a feature for a reason. Use them.

I always avoid threads like this for new movies I have yet to see. It is taking a chance at a spoiler every time, and thus not a wise decision. I just use Rotten Tomatoes to read a few synapses of the movie, and they avoid spoilers.

For me this didn't feel like a Bond movie, cause Bond got shot which I've never seen in a Bond movie, M died (I think I can say that without spoilers now as the cats out of the bag) and there was no Bind girl at the end really that he gets with, sure Moneypenny was there but he didn't get with her or sleep with her or anything. The homoerotic scene was quite funny actually, the audience laughed and so did I but at the same time I sat there with my jaw on the ground after James was like 'What makes you think this is my first time?'

I actually didn't know she was dead.

Could you guys stop being stupid and just use spoiler tags? It literally takes all of 3 seconds to type . Yes, one could just not enter this thread. But, we have spoiler tags.

...hold on M dies

Nah, took longer than 3 seconds

Originally posted by steverules_2
For me this didn't feel like a Bond movie, cause Bond got shot which I've never seen in a Bond movie, M died (I think I can say that without spoilers now as the cats out of the bag) and there was no Bind girl at the end really that he gets with, sure Moneypenny was there but he didn't get with her or sleep with her or anything. The homoerotic scene was quite funny actually, the audience laughed and so did I but at the same time I sat there with my jaw on the ground after James was like 'What makes you think this is my first time?'

They wanted it to feel like a more realistic take. Bond's not invincible. He's one of the best secret agents out there, but let's be real; he's human, he errs, and there's a chance he could get hurt. And no, he's never been shot before now.

As for Eve...I think the shaving scene and the banter in the casino pretty much spells out that they at least got together that once.

Bond: It's amazing what you can do with an extra pair of hands.
Eve: I don't remember her exact words, but the way she agreed implied that she let him take that shirt off after they were done.

As for the flirt scene. I too laughed, but James doesn't seem the type to go for guys. He's way too into women to be believable as even bi-sexual. Maybe he meant he'd gone undercover before and had to "act", or maybe he was just keeping up the banter to keep him from going too far.

Originally posted by steverules_2
I sat there with my jaw on the ground after James was like 'What makes you think this is my first time?' Originally posted by KingD19
As for the flirt scene. I too laughed, but James doesn't seem the type to go for guys. He's way too into women to be believable as even bi-sexual. Maybe he meant he'd gone undercover before and had to "act", or maybe he was just keeping up the banter to keep him from going too far.

I really don't think it's meant to imply anything. I think he was just trying to show the guy that he wasn't getting to him, that he wasn't intimidated by it. After I saw Die Another Day, I vowed that I was done with James Bond movies, cuz it was soooooo bad. Well, I broke that vow because there's been some good ones since then. But the day that Bond gets with a dude is the day that I seriously will be done with the series.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I actually didn't know she was dead.

Could you guys stop being stupid and just use spoiler tags? It literally takes all of 3 seconds to type . Yes, one could just not enter this thread. But, we have spoiler tags. Stay out of the thread, it takes no time at all.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I actually meant that as sarcasm. Of course he didn't die. That's not the point, the point is he arrives and puts the knife in his back. Seen that a million times in movies/tv. Oldest trick in the book. It's usually done by more minor characters, but still. I was expecting him to die from the knife the moment it was shown to Bond.

Plot hole anyone? Well, not a plot hole, but just idiocy. Why the eff did they plug the damn PC into their mainframe that's attached to their entire system in order to analyze it? The freaking Geek Squad at Best Buy probably wouldn't do something so stupid. Give us a little credit and dream up something like the unit cracking their WiFi or something else, I don't know, but seriously that made no sense at all.

That said while I thought the opening wasn't quite up to snuff, I loved the rest of the film, especially once Bond was back on the hunt. Bardem made a great villain, and it was nice to have one with motive and means. Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day were such a disgrace after Goldeneye and Quantum of Solace was a letdown as well in that department. This one definitely brought back the feeling of someone who could give Bond a run, and in a much darker way than is usual for Bond films of the past.

Worth seeing.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Plot hole anyone? Well, not a plot hole, but just idiocy. Why the eff did they plug the damn PC into their mainframe that's attached to their entire system in order to analyze it? The freaking Geek Squad at Best Buy probably wouldn't do something so stupid. Give us a little credit and dream up something like the unit cracking their WiFi or something else, I don't know, but seriously that made no sense at all.


The data would have been analyzed in an ultra-clean environment with a bit-locker on an isolated computer not connected to the network. If mass number crunching needed to be done, it would have been done in virtual machine governed by a strict hypervisor to prevent "leakage" outside of the VM sandbox. In other words, any digital forensics specialist would know better...especially an ultra secret government agency run by one of the world's greatest military powers (and in the history of the world, for that matter). Summary: bad writing just to have a plot.

But, hey, 90% of the population are not going to know better. But pretty much anyone in this thread will know better. Go figure?

I find Craig at least as good as Connery. And I liked Skyfall at least as much as Thunderball.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The data would have been analyzed in an ultra-clean environment with a bit-locker on an isolated computer not connected to the network. If mass number crunching needed to be done, it would have been done in virtual machine governed by a strict hypervisor to prevent "leakage" outside of the VM sandbox. In other words, any digital forensics specialist would know better...especially an ultra secret government agency run by one of the world's greatest military powers (and in the history of the world, for that matter). Summary: bad writing just to have a plot.

But, hey, 90% of the population are not going to know better. But pretty much anyone in this thread will know better. Go figure? You're correct on both points.

We are nerds though.

Well, not me, I'm just smart.

When I saw Q do that I was questioning his smarts, even I wouldn't have done that...plus Bond noticed the little code/password whatever you wanna call it pretty easily and Q didn't really seem to notice anything until Bond pointed it out

Yeah, the whole computer thing was definitely the weakest part of the plot.

I loved Skyfall. Saw it twice.

Originally posted by steverules_2
When I saw Q do that I was questioning his smarts, even I wouldn't have done that...plus Bond noticed the little code/password whatever you wanna call it pretty easily and Q didn't really seem to notice anything until Bond pointed it out
That goes to show that Q should better get out of his pyjamas, if he wants his career in international espionage to progress .

i liked this movie a lot.. i liked how they showed Q's naivete.. who here hasn't clicked on a pop-up when they went online for the first time.. i know it's a little more grave than a pop-up but it points out Q's green-ness and cockiness ("i invented it" and inexperience..

Went and seen it earlier today pretty good Bond movie

at least an 8/10

Wonder when they will go back to that Quantum organization which Casino Royale & Quantum Of Solace had.

Saw it again last night, just as great as the first time. Excellent film.

IMDB reports that Skyfall is the most financially successful of ALL the Bond films on its opening weekend.

Skyfall is the 23rd James Bond film going back 50 years. All the Bond films pit Agent 007 against an archenemy of mother England. They have increasingly become a string of action and violent scenes marking the decline of the British Empire. How long can western civilization sustain $200 million movies? The movie gets its title because Skyfall is the name of the orphanage in which James Bond grew up. I think Daniel Craig makes the best Bond. He has an edge and a vulnerability the others do not.

Skyfall is unequivocally one of my Top 10 Favorite Films of 2012.
Javier Bardem was terrific as Raoul Silva.

Finally saw this lastnight on blu-ray.
Sam Mendes was a good choice of director but I kinda still felt that Bond movies seem to be outdated these days...

The stunts/action scenes were ok...until you notice the deliberate flat-track on the roof for the bikes to race across OR the grilled platform welded to the bull-dozer's swing arm for Bond to run across.

And it seems harder each movie to come up with a villain that doesn't have a cliched reason to be the antagonist. He had the potential to cause havoc on a worldwide level (like every Bond villain) but then his reason became obscured & convoluted with his vendetta on M. In the end, the bad guy did a half arsed job with all the computer tech he had at his fingers.

His ultimate goal was revenge on M and he got it. Doesn't seem like many people just want to enjoy films anymore, have to analyze them to death.