Brontoforumus Archive

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:


This board has been fossilized.
You are reading an archive of Brontoforumus, a.k.a. The Worst Forums Ever, from 2008 to early 2014.  Registration and posting (for most members) has been disabled here to discourage spambots from taking over.  Old members can still log in to view boards, PMs, etc.

The new message board is at http://brontoforum.us.

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Bond.  (Read 2716 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Bond.
« Reply #20 on: October 08, 2012, 01:56:13 PM »

Not going to argue that the Craig movies are worse than the later Brosnan movies at all. Most people I know have said they were a big improvement. I'm just saying it would have been more interesting (to me anyway) to have a Bond that was actually totally faithful to the books.

I agree with Geo that Goldeneye was the last decent "old style" bond movie, for largely the same reasons he describes.

I guess I want extremes? Like I either want the full camp of a 60's bond movie, or something that's actually very close to realism (which, frankly, I can't think of any spy movies that do this). The sort of half-measures of the Craig Bond movies or say, the Bourne movies live in this dim twilight of half-assed not-really-reality that never really appeals to me. But that's just personal preference.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Bond.
« Reply #21 on: October 08, 2012, 03:09:35 PM »

The James Bond series needs to get a safe distance away from Austin Powers before it starts bringing back the outright camp, or else it'll just look like it's trying to emulate a parody of itself.
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Bond.
« Reply #22 on: October 08, 2012, 03:32:15 PM »

I don't really think it can bring back camp at all without being ridiculous (that era's over, that ship has sailed, etc.), so it's probably moot - but you do have a point there.
Logged

Shinra

  • Big Juicy Winners
  • Tested
  • Karma: 34
  • Posts: 3269
    • View Profile
Re: Bond.
« Reply #23 on: October 08, 2012, 06:16:17 PM »

I have never seen any James Bond movie, and my only association with the franchise is Goldeneye (N64).

Should I correct this, and if so, how do I start?

My first Bond movie was the first, Dr No, which is not very good.

The Bond series is worth getting started on if you like campy movies. They're all campy, with the exception of the new Casino Royale. Quantum of Solace tries to play up being serious but ends up amping up the camp-o-meter at times - I blame this mostly on the genre and the character. It just sort of lends itself to being ridiculous. Keep in mind that these movies are best watched as something to lampoon or chuckle at, and better with friends. Most bond movies never got better than 70 or 80% when you aggregate movie review scores, which isn't horrible but the movies aren't known for huge budgets, great writing and deep characterization. Bond movies are the kind of thing that come out every couple of years like clockwork, they recycle a lot of similar concepts and plots.

Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice are probably my two favorite bond movies. Goldfinger is great, it created most of the major Bond stereotypes and has the "I expect you to die" line that has been parodied to death. You Only Live Twice is one of those movies that when you consider the technology of the time, as far as b-movie spy thrillers go, it's basically Ben Hur. If you want to see an actor about to make the worst decision of his life, watch In Her Majesty's Secret Service, in which George Lazenby plays a good (but very low budget) bond, in his only run as the character as he was afraid of being typecast like that Sean Connery nobody was before him. :rolleyes:

(fun fact: Lazenby supplements his retirement income by going to comic conventions as "James Bond" and signing autographs.)

Also Live and Let Die is the kind of movie that you have to watch, just go into it expecting something offensively racist. They really tried to play up blaxploitation and the end result is fucking ridiculous. It is an absolutely bizarre movie.



Logged

Bal

  • Cheerful in the face of nuclear armageddon
  • Tested
  • Karma: 62
  • Posts: 3861
    • View Profile
Re: Bond.
« Reply #24 on: October 08, 2012, 06:38:54 PM »

I think it's funny that Craig Bond gets criticized for being more like Jason Bourne, when the Bourne movies are a vast (much improved) departure from the Bourne books, and both are more similar to the Bond of the novels than either movie Bond or novel Bourne. .
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Bond.
« Reply #25 on: October 08, 2012, 07:50:58 PM »

Also Live and Let Die is the kind of movie that you have to watch, just go into it expecting something offensively racist. They really tried to play up blaxploitation and the end result is fucking ridiculous. It is an absolutely bizarre movie.

This bears repeating. Live and let die is truly a whackjob nuthouse of a movie. And oh man, THAT ENDING.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Bond.
« Reply #26 on: October 09, 2012, 12:08:23 AM »

This thread has been hijacked.

It is now about Bond.

Bond - Explosive

I can never decide between Tania and Eos, mainly because I can barely tell them apart.  Eos is the one with the slightly more teased hair and the way more teased everything else.
Logged

Büge

  • won't give you fleaz
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65304
  • Posts: 10062
    • View Profile
Re: Bond.
« Reply #27 on: October 09, 2012, 06:33:00 AM »

Not going to argue that the Craig movies are worse than the later Brosnan movies at all. Most people I know have said they were a big improvement. I'm just saying it would have been more interesting (to me anyway) to have a Bond that was actually totally faithful to the books.

But book-Bond was a rapist.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Bond.
« Reply #28 on: October 09, 2012, 06:56:30 AM »

And every movie Bond has been a self-satisfied murderer.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Bond.
« Reply #29 on: October 12, 2012, 10:02:07 AM »

The Reg has an article on the Bond villains.  The first page is a little silly ("potential real-life Bond villains"); on the second they talk to a psychologist about the psychopathy and other traits common to the Bond foes.

The last page is probably the best as it looks at Bond himself -- or themselves, as the psychologist takes the more interesting tack of suggesting a universe where "Bond" is a code name just like "007" is and these 6 guys all exist in the same universe as distinct people.  (Something the latest volume of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen played with as well.)  She comes up with in-universe explanations for the characters' behavior and reactions -- Lazenby's Bond just couldn't cope after the death of his wife and that's why he only made it out on one mission.
Logged

Misha

  • Pro-Choice
  • Tested
  • Karma: 3
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
Re: Movies in the Theater
« Reply #30 on: November 16, 2012, 10:16:11 PM »

Skyfall Summary: James Bond jumps on a komodo dragon for literally no reason.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Movies for Home Viewing
« Reply #31 on: February 18, 2013, 06:36:37 PM »

Logged

Classic

  • Happens more often than you'd think.
  • Tested
  • Karma: -58471
  • Posts: 7501
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Movies for Home Viewing
« Reply #32 on: February 18, 2013, 06:43:44 PM »

Doesn't the "security through obscurity" line come in right before Q is like, "[spoiler]Imma bust this shit up![/spoiler]" and then he's like, "[spoiler]O NO! MY HUBRIS![/spoiler]"
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Re: Movies for Home Viewing
« Reply #33 on: February 18, 2013, 07:54:21 PM »

Yes.  All of which implies that security through obscurity works.  Which is nonsense.

Anybody can design a security system that he himself can't outsmart.  (Which is also why [spoiler]Q's smug "I INVENTED it" line doesn't ring true; if you invented a security algorithm that's all the more reason you SHOULDN'T be able to crack it.  Unless you suck at your job.  Why the fuck would you invent a security system that you know how to crack?  Unless you're an amateur-hour punk who wants to build a backdoor into his system for his own benefit and who is also so arrogant as to think nobody else will find it.[/spoiler])  A reasonably accomplished security professional can create a security system that he, his team, and his company can't outsmart.

But if you want to really make sure your shit can't be broken?  You don't hide that shit away, you PUBLISH it and let every motherfucker in the world take a crack at it.

The best security algorithms in the world aren't the ones that some wunderkind just came up with and is keeping a secret.  They're the ones that people have been taking a baseball bat to for twenty years and still haven't managed to crack.

Really the only way that scene works is if you completely reverse the clearly-intended context and [spoiler]assume that it's Q who tried to use security through obscurity and Silver who made HIM look like a fool by going with well-established crypto[/spoiler].

Crypto that looks like a game of goddamn Asteroids.
Logged

Classic

  • Happens more often than you'd think.
  • Tested
  • Karma: -58471
  • Posts: 7501
    • View Profile
Re: Re: Movies for Home Viewing
« Reply #34 on: February 18, 2013, 10:05:12 PM »

[spoiler]Q's smug "I INVENTED it" line doesn't ring true;[/spoiler]
I was willing to go with the assertion that Q was a published wunderkind who'd been keeping tabs on all the work done to crack his crypto, making his bragging somewhat legit. Up until about the time [spoiler]Silva managed to make a train crash on Bond[/spoiler], anyway.

I've also given up on anything that resembles actual security work being shown in a movie.
...
...
Swordfish interview process
Well, maybe there's some truth in that movie?
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Re: Movies for Home Viewing
« Reply #35 on: February 18, 2013, 10:30:45 PM »

Why yes I WAS thinking of Hugh Jackman's magic rotating-polygon Worm Generation Program through the whole scene.

(Man, imagine if every time you logged into your computer it made you sit there and wait while it flashed "ACCESS GRANTED" in giant all-caps green letters while making stupid fucking beeping noises.  I mean, fuck's sake, Tron is one thing, that was 1982, but in the twenty-first century EVERY SINGLE FUCKING PERSON WATCHING YOUR MOVIE/TV SHOW HAS AT SOME POINT IN THEIR LIVES LOGGED INTO A COMPUTER AND NOTICED HOW IT DIDN'T DO THAT.  At least Skyfall didn't do THAT crap.  Just, you know, Nedry's "Ah-ah-ah" bit from Jurassic Park.  ...which, to be fair, isn't actually much different from what script kiddies do when they deface websites.)

EDIT: Oh right, we have a Bond thread.  Splitmerged.  Also splitmerged Misha's post, because why the hell not.  (Did not splitmerge Friday's post because it was also about Wreck-It Ralph.)

Also: forgot to mention, but I am disappointed in this movie for showing Bond's parents' graves and revealing that their name is really Bond, because it undermines the theory I quoted above that "James Bond" is just the code name they give to every guy who gets this job and all the Bonds exist in the same continuity over a 50-year period.

Also also: I can't believe it took me 20 years to notice "Nedry" is just "nerdy" with two letters switched.  Oh, Crichton, you were not very good at naming characters things besides Ross and Ted.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]