Quote from Bonk

kk .

lol dumbass

I've never watched any of the other James Bonds movies, but I might watch this.

I'm still not sold on Daniel Craig as the new bond. So I'm going to pass on this.















But I will more than likely end up seeing it with my friends....>_>

Quote from Chunk

I kinda got confused that in the first bond films all the cars were old fashioned and shit but in the new ones hes supposed to have just started out and all the shit is modern. Great ****ing film though.

I kinda like movie series that do this. The movies are all filmed to take place in "modern times", so when a sequel is released, lets say, 10 years later, but the story takes place 2 DAYS later.

Romero's "Dead" series does this as well. Night of the living Dead takes place just a few weeks before Dawn of the Dead, and Day takes place almost a year after Dawn of the Dead, and then Land of the Dead takes place another year or so after Day, but Diary of the Dead takes place at the beginning of the zombie outbreak, ie alongside Night, but in modern day.

I call it a chronomorphic timeframe, where the timeline is set relative to the currently released film. You can think of each Bond sequel as having a lot of unfilmed preludes and sequels taht take place in the proper time frame. So, imagine that Casino Royale has an unfilmed remake of "Dr. No" that takes place in 2009, around a year after Bond becomes a 00 agent.

Quote from Ash

I kinda like movie series that do this. The movies are all filmed to take place in "modern times", so when a sequel is released, lets say, 10 years later, but the story takes place 2 DAYS later.

Romero's "Dead" series does this as well. Night of the living Dead takes place just a few weeks before Dawn of the Dead, and Day takes place almost a year after Dawn of the Dead, and then Land of the Dead takes place another year or so after Day, but Diary of the Dead takes place at the beginning of the zombie outbreak, ie alongside Night, but in modern day.

I call it a chronomorphic timeframe, where the timeline is set relative to the currently released film. You can think of each Bond sequel as having a lot of unfilmed preludes and sequels taht take place in the proper time frame. So, imagine that Casino Royale has an unfilmed remake of "Dr. No" that takes place in 2009, around a year after Bond becomes a 00 agent.

wut.

I some what get what you're saying but now I got a headache.

Bolivia and stocks of ... water? Not every film has to have their story built around oil, but water? Ok, I know Bond is like the king of cliche, but ... water? THEYRE NOT STEELING ME PRECIOUS WATER!

Also, looks like camera saves Bond's ass every time. Like, one moment he's on the ground and the next thing you see him being in control. It's a movie with a very shallow story, mostly just Bond doing action stuff, such as jumping around, fighting people and riding speed-boats.

Laaaaaaaaaameeeeeee ...

Quote from Mantha

Bolivia and stocks of ... water? Not every film has to have their story built around oil, but water? Ok, I know Bond is like the king of cliche, but ... water? THEYRE NOT STEELING ME PRECIOUS WATER!

Also, looks like camera saves Bond's ass every time. Like, one moment he's on the ground and the next thing you see him being in control. It's a movie with a very shallow story, mostly just Bond doing action stuff, such as jumping around, fighting people and riding speed-boats.

Laaaaaaaaaameeeeeee ...

It's a Bond film. This always happens. Bond movie's plots exist only to give a reason for Bond to be in the places he is in, doing the things he's doing.

Casino Royale is the only exception.

Just came back from seeing it.. wasn't bad, though I couldn't follow a lot of it.

Quote from Exilement

Just came back from seeing it.. wasn't bad, though I couldn't follow a lot of it.

Agreed, what was all that shit with the touch screens?
It made it harder to follow and seemed like it was just for the sake of technology.

lol the touch screens were just there for the sake of making shit look awesome. Also, the story was great, I don't know why everyone didn't like it. Action scenes were cut up too much, but other than that, I'd say that everything was well done.

The fight scenes were brutal and way awesome.

Quote from Mantha

Bolivia and stocks of ... water? Not every film has to have their story built around oil, but water? Ok, I know Bond is like the king of cliche, but ... water? THEYRE NOT STEELING ME PRECIOUS WATER!

Also, looks like camera saves Bond's ass every time. Like, one moment he's on the ground and the next thing you see him being in control. It's a movie with a very shallow story, mostly just Bond doing action stuff, such as jumping around, fighting people and riding speed-boats.

Laaaaaaaaaameeeeeee ...

This is obviously your first Bond film ever.

No it's not.

More like, the worst film ever. loololol

You disappoint me. We must do battle.


I can be Bond.

Quote from Mantha

No it's not.

More like, the worst film ever. loololol

I guess you cant appreciate brilliant cinematography, fight choreography and stunt work, not to mention great acting. But you're right, because it didn't have a plot worthy of homer than it is the worst movie in existence. :heh: