Implying liking Bond requires believing this.
Ten against one in my other thread so far. I wonder why. Well, that one guy's really more half and half.
I already dislike Lashana Lynch (No Time to Die)
- Thread starter Ezekiel
- Start date
Ten against one in my other thread so far. I wonder why. Well, that one guy's really more half and half.
To clarify, not that there's specifically 1/2/3/however many different versions of Bond or whatever, just acknowledging that you shouldn't worry too much about continuity. Even within individual actors' runs there's problems, just go with it, there's gunfights and bad one-liners and cool cars.
I remember the build up to Casino Royale, and they stated quite frankly that it was a new continuity, unconnected to the previous versions.
But they had Judi Dench, and I think the same building. Why do that if they are supposed to be unrelated?
Saying it seems a really weird move on someone's part, rather than you are wrong there. Unless you worked on the James Bond films in a high profile role, in which case I have a long list of things wrong with the films that you don't want to read.
They kept Dame Judi Dench because was a well liked and well respected actress and Eon didn't want to let her go. Or it may well have been contractual. I don't know, but it wasn't an explicit way to tie the two sets of movies together and I'll tell you why: because Moneypenny doesn't become Moneypenny until after her M is dead at the end of Skyfall.
I think i wrote in a different thread, lost to time, why i think changing Bond's skin tone would work, but changing his gender wouldn't.
Long story short - Bond is innately tied to the idea of (toxic) masculinity.
Long story short - Bond is innately tied to the idea of (toxic) masculinity.
The MI6 building is a real-world structure. As for Dench, because she's a good actress?
I think they're about as connected the Mad Max movies or the Dollars trilogy, meaning nothing more than small easter eggs and hints of the other legends. Occasionally something more concrete. But nothing solid enough to imply continuity. They were always meant to be enjoyed on their own.
That would explain that.
Still rather unusual for a reboot.
In any case, I'm not particularly emotionally invested in Bond continuity, or the recent films at all really, it just seemed to me that there was a connection.
I recall a review that wrote that "Man of Steel" was a great Superman movie for people that don't like Superman. They had a point. (With the exception of the magnificent Krypton mythology). Cavill's MOS seemed disinterested in trying to have a secret ID. Little chemistry with him and "Lois". He kills someone on his 1st movie. How Pa Kent acts and gets it... very counter continuity.
But I think Brandon Routh was more hosed over. Bryan Singer had great success making the X-Men a metaphor for the feelings of alienation that accompany entering puberty and even being gay. It didn't work in his Superman, making Routh a literal alien pretending to be human. But we've seen Routh as Superman in the Crisis TV show. He shows he can be that character.
Where they take the character on screen from here? Any more WB movies? Haven't heard much about Flash.
I do hear they're making another "Lois and Clark" type TV show. I don't much like this new Superman in the Arrow-verse. I like Lois even less. Maybe it will grow on me.
Which makes Superman II a lesser movie for my money. In fact the end of it is really, really weird. The Donner cut reveals that Zod, Ursa and Non lived but I’ll agree it’s a damn obvious saving throw.
But Superman, 1978, is one of the best representations of Superman as he was at the time and it’s an interpretation that looms large. Fairly or not. I mean if they wanted a more contemporary Superman then that’s cool but I feel the DCAU beat them to it with Superman: the Animated Series and his continuing appearances on Justice League. They could literally have copied and pasted that with a few tweaks and been sweet as a nut.
Superman doesn’t have to be a saint; but one fairly common part of his character I have observed is that he did what he did because he could. Because he believes that these powers, God like in their breadth, are there and within him to do good. I stand by it that WB have lost the best Superman talent they are ever likely to have for the next twenty years when Cavill left.
I personally liked how the humans responded in Man of Steel. They would be wary.
Superman being told to be so way of humans and copying that is weird. Shouldn’t he be trying to do what’s best despite what the humans think?
But... did he? Threw him into some snow. It was silly. Man. People were strange around then! Cuz... what did happen to them? The Krypton criminals?
He was thrown into a foggy crevasse. Wasn't it Lois who threw Zods second in charge straight after him?
I do remember it being a bit slapstick
At least it was clever. Like the end of Doctor Strange. When your hero is threatened by someone with more power than the hero, so the hero has to do something clever to win. We need more of that. When you have something like the new Wonder Woman, where she simply hits the bad buy longer, more often and harder than the bad is hitting the hero? Dull.