James Bond In Skyfall - Part 10

[Ajendo]

Yet you keep reading my posts. As I said before, if I's so insufferable (your word, not mine) you should block me. Or is it that you know so little that even you begrudgingly reads my posts because I know what I'm talking about. Even if you simply make childish attempts to disagree afterwards.

Does Superman have the power to turn back time? Throw cellophane S shields out of his chest. No, but it's in the movies and those things are wrong. Just like there are many things in the Bond movies that are just that.

But to the original point before you started trolling. Yes, Brosnan could have done CR and it would have come off just as well considering CR is not a first mission story like the movie but an experienced agent with CR just being the first book in series.

I'm not interested in what the superman movies do. For about 40 years there are arguably only 2 decent superman movies anyway. Strictly keeping the discussion on Bond, yes, there are things the movies have done that are utter nonsense but again you can't seem to grasp the extremely elementary fact that the movies are NOT the novels. Speaking of the novels, they're not all great sources of literature. Even Fleming wrote some rather crappy pieces and don't get me started on the likes of Deaver and Faulks. Hell, even Benson wrote his novels like the movies at times.
Like I said believe what you want but most of us familiar with the Bond universe are conscious of the fact that the movies and the novels are different.
As for me trolling, dont be silly.If you think i am then report me if it'll make you feel better.
As for CR, I agree that it didn't need to be a reboot or focus on 007 getting his LTK. It could have been just another Bond adventure but the producers decided to do what they did and it hasn't hurt them in anyway, shape or form.

 

[ChickenScratch]

I'm not interested in what the superman movies do. For about 40 years there are arguably only 2 decent superman movies anyway. Strictly keeping the discussion on Bond, yes, there are things the movies have done that are utter nonsense but again you can't seem to grasp the extremely elementary fact that the movies are NOT the novels. Speaking of the novels, they're not all great sources of literature. Even Fleming wrote some rather crappy pieces and don't get me started on the likes of Deaver and Faulks. Hell, even Benson wrote his novels like the movies at times.
Like I said believe what you want but most of us familiar with the Bond universe are conscious of the fact that the movies and the novels are different.
As for me trolling, dont be silly.If you think i am then report me if it'll make you feel better.
As for CR, I agree that it didn't need to be a reboot or focus on 007 getting his LTK. It could have been just another Bond adventure but the producers decided to do what they did and it hasn't hurt them in anyway, shape or form.

You must have missed my previous posts then. As I said, I err on the side of the books when there is a difference between the two. Just like if someone were to ask me if Superman can turn back time I would say no. It's not tough to grasp, if a movies says X and the book says Y, I'm going with Y. Doesn't mean I didn't see X.

So now it's attack the source material. Pray tell, what's so wrong with Deaver and Faulks' takes on the character?

 

[747]

every comic book,TV show,and novel adopted Into films makes changes.Some need to accept that.

Some will never, there are people like that in every area of life, with a more conservatistic mindset. Personally, I embrace change. If I think it's good that will say, but that goes without saying.

 

[Marvolo]

You must have missed my previous posts then. As I said, I err on the side of the books when there is a difference between the two. Just like if someone were to ask me if Superman can turn back time I would say no. It's not tough to grasp, if a movies says X and the book says Y, I'm going with Y. Doesn't mean I didn't see X.

So now it's attack the source material. Pray tell, what's so wrong with Deaver and Faulks' takes on the character?

Why not just go with both seeing as they are two seperate universes. In the movies superman can turn back time. In the comics he can't. Why can't you accept both? One is books and one is movies. In the books Bond smokes like a freight train . Bond in the movies doesn't. Neither is wrong. See how that works?

 

[Ajendo]

Marvolo your wasting your time with chickenscratch. He's finding it terribly difficult to accept the literary and the movie interpretations.

Faulks wrote a horrible period piece and Deaver wrote about a so called Bond character that was almost unrecognisable. It could have been any generic agent he was writing about.

Anyway...

Mendes could be back for another

http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/skyfall-director-sam-mendes-could-return-for-next/289110

 

[ChickenScratch]

Why not just go with both seeing as they are two seperate universes. In the movies superman can turn back time. In the comics he can't. Why can't you accept both? One is books and one is movies. In the books Bond smokes like a freight train . Bond in the movies doesn't. Neither is wrong. See how that works?

I don't have to accept a thing. Grow up and stop trying to shape my opinion.

Why is it such a huge deal with you people that I prefer the literary interpretation of the character? As I said before, you can block me if you wish but I can see Bond any way I wish and you are welcome to do the same. Your opinions or ideas about the character does not have to be mine and will not be mine. I'm not gonna come around to your way of seeing things no matter how much nerd rage you may have.

 

[Marvolo]

I don't have to accept a thing. Grow up and stop trying to shape my opinion.

Why is it such a huge deal with you people that I prefer the literary interpretation of the character? As I said before, you can block me if you wish but I can see Bond any way I wish and you are welcome to do the same. Your opinions or ideas about the character does not have to be mine and will not be mine. I'm not gonna come around to your way of seeing things no matter how much nerd rage you may have.

I was just asking a question. Stop being so defensive. Christ.

I was wondering why you choose to not let both worlds exist and save yourself the aggravation everytime they change something. Do whatever you want to i dont really give a rats ass. Just wanted to understand is all.

And for the record the only 'nerd' rage i see is coming from your end *****ing about these movies for doing what every adaption does.

 

[ChickenScratch]

I don't have to "let both worlds exist." The books and the movies both exist in my absence or presence. It's what I prefer and which I see as the better of the two.

 

[redhawk23]

What I think this conversation needs is a recognition is that after 50 years of setting up their own take on the character as well as their own plot conventions and visual cues, any new bond film is going to be drawing on past films as form of source material as much or more than they rely on the books.

 

[Marvolo]

I don't have to "let both worlds exist." The books and the movies both exist in my absence or presence. It's what I prefer and which I see as the better of the two.

But despite which one may or may not be subjectively better they both still exist as separate entities so to let one influence your opinion of the other just seems illogical.

I saw this all the time with Harry Potter. People would fuss about something that happened in the movie because of something that happened in the book. Whatever happened in the book doesnt exist in the film unless directly referenced. If it isnt an actual problem and the film still makes sense i cant see why there would be a problem. For instance you said a while back that casino royal shouldnt have been where it was in the film due to in the books bond having enemies there or something. In the movie he doesnt have enemies there because that is never established so how can that be held against the film?

 

[Marvolo]

What I think this conversation needs is a recognition is that after 50 years of setting up their own take on the character as well as their own plot conventions and visual cues, any new bond film is going to be drawing on past films as form of source material as much or more than they rely on the books.

Not to mention that at this point film Bond is more the broccolis creation than flemmings. The films are based on the character created by flemming and sometimes his stories but just like anything else based on something else anytime something is put to screen it takes a life of its own and becomes its own entity separate of fact or stories it is based upon.

 

[ChickenScratch]

But despite which one may or may not be subjectively better they both still exist as separate entities so to let one influence your opinion of the other just seems illogical.

I saw this all the time with Harry Potter. People would fuss about something that happened in the movie because of something that happened in the book. Whatever happened in the book doesnt exist in the film unless directly referenced. If it isnt an actual problem and the film still makes sense i cant see why there would be a problem. For instance you said a while back that casino royal shouldnt have been where it was in the film due to in the books bond having enemies there or something. In the movie he doesnt have enemies there because that is never established so how can that be held against the film?

No. I said nothing about enemies in relation to where CR is.

 

[Marvolo]

No. I said nothing about enemies in relation to where CR is.

Give me a refresher. It was a week or most likely longer ago when it came up. What was the point you made about Casino Royale's location in the film. Its different from the book, right?

 

[ChickenScratch]

It's in the thread, or in the book.

 

[Marvolo]

It's in the thread, or in the book.

I don't have the book and am on a mobile so looking through the thread is difficult when the post is weeks back.

Even without that post, you've made indication before that you consider changes a fault to the film regardless of whether said change actually hurts the film. That is what led me to ask why both cant exist equally without letting one universe hamper your enjoyment of the other universe. Of course you have free will and of course none of us are suggesting you fall in line with our views. Friendly discussions here that is all. If you prefer novel to film i want begrudge you for it. The films are largely not the peak of excellence and id say in many ways the novels outdo them, but I do find fun in the films. To each their own and all that.

 

[Octoberist]

Play nice guys.

 

[Gold Samurai]

Natalya- You're like boys with toys.

 

[regwec]

I loved the way she said that!

And the way Xenia bit her lip when crushing people. That was a sexy film, really...

 

[bullets]

Don't kill me people but..

I liked Goldeneye but there's something about it where it's a solid B but it gets an A due to Brosnan's other, lesser films. It's a good movie but I think Bond himself was badly written. And while I love Sean Bean, I can't say he was a great villain. He's barely in the film.

Also I hated the stupid highway scene with Bond racing with Onatopp. It's overly long and the music sounded like Seinfeld.

I thought it was distracting and the race somehow looked more ridiculous. Not the first time that's happened in a Bond film unfortunately.

This might be a bad opinion but I actually prefer Tommorow Never Dies over Goldeneye.

I just got the Goldeneye blu ray I thought it was great quality. Great movie as well.

I bought Goldeneye , Tommorow Never Die , and The World is not enough on blu ray a few days ago. The picture quality was severely lacking on Goldeneye (imo) but it's still an upgrade. The other two look much better.

I though Brosnan was fine. I don't think Pierce was a prettyboy. You could argue Brosnan wasn't much of a tough guy but neither was Roger Moore and people like him as Bond.

I need to rewatch the series. I haven't seen them all though and for most of the others it's been years. Brosnon is a good Bond though. I can't believe people are claiming he didn't seem lethal.

 

[hammerhedd11]

Does Superman have the power to turn back time? Throw cellophane S shields out of his chest. No, but it's in the movies and those things are wrong. Just like there are many things in the Bond movies that are just that.

Ok, if you live by this mindset, Superman shouldn't be able to fly either, right?

 

[ChickenScratch]

Why shouldnt he be able to fly now?

 

[747]

http://collider.com/sam-mendes-skyfall-the-dark-knight/204523/

 

[hammerhedd11]

Why shouldnt he be able to fly now?

Well, you act as if the original novels of James Bond are "right", the movies getting it "wrong".
Considering Superman could not fly in his original appearances, shouldn't anything going against that be wrong? I guess I just don't understand your train of thought that there can only be one "correct" interpretation of a character that's existed for so long and been written by thousands of different writers. What then is it then that we base off of for characters that are like this for what is correct? Shouldn't it be their original appearances? Therefore, Superman shouldn't be able to fly.

 

[Gold Samurai]

http://collider.com/sam-mendes-skyfall-the-dark-knight/204523/

I knew it a few months ago

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=23322209

As one falls...

Another rises

M- Some men, just want to watch the world burn.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Well, you act as if the original novels of James Bond are "right", the movies getting it "wrong".
Considering Superman could not fly in his original appearances, shouldn't anything going against that be wrong? I guess I just don't understand your train of thought that there can only be one "correct" interpretation of a character that's existed for so long and been written by thousands of different writers. What then is it then that we base off of for characters that are like this for what is correct? Shouldn't it be their original appearances? Therefore, Superman shouldn't be able to fly.

Considering your trying to be clever. No, I like post crisis Superman.

There are many literary interpretations of Superman (thousands of different writers).

There is one literary interpretation of Bond. All authors and timelines build off of one.