The James Bond sieries.

I stopped watching it as soon as Pierce Brosman became the new Bond. The previous bonds had something else, had more spirit. While the new ones don't amuse me the typical movie scenario:

Bond in trouble ---> Bond gets new equipment and mission ---> Bond at party, meets women and scores ---> Bond sabotages/steals evidence of plot ---> Bond gets discovered, shot at nearly killed and in some cases captured ---> Bond makes use of his equipment to escape or kill the bad guys ---> Movie ends.

Are the new Bond movies any good? I know it might be hard to convince me... Especially with the old Q gone.

 

He's in all of them but the last one that just came out (replace by John Cleese, so its not as big a loss as I thought it would be).

They are still pretty good, nothing much groundbreaking in the way of bond though. They are still good, I think.

 

the only decent Bond was Roger Moore, everybody else pretty much sucked, and the newer movies with Pierce (look at my hair) Brosnon is just a joke, i walked out of the theatre after 30 mins during his first one and can't stomach contemplating going to see another one of his attempts at looking cool and sophisticated.

 

Just my opinion, but I rather like Pierce Brosnan as Bond. I haven't seen Die Another Day yet (Saw LOTR 2 last night!) but I will. I think the only other person that did James Bond well was Sean Connery. Roger Moore and that other fellow, what's his name? I think they sucked.

 

I watched Die Another Day. In the context of it being a Bond movie, it was very good.

I have liked all the Bonds, but then I am easily pleased. Strangely, I particularly liked Timothy Dalton, who everyone else seems to dislike in the role. I though his more sensitive/vulnerable Bond, while being a departure from Fleming's character worked very well. He was more gallant, I think, and therefore more of a hero in my mind. Maybe I'm just a wuss.

 

I've only watched 2 Roger Moore movies and 1 Sean Connery. Most of it are from Pierce Brosnan so I can't really comment. What I can say is I haven't watched "Die Another Day" because it doesn't seem to be that appealing even after I watched the making. Sabi nila they don't like it because hindi daw makatotohanan. Yung iba naman, maganda daw.

 

....ummmm, I think you lost me on the end there...

 

I'll just pretend Al didn't say anything.

Jinxed, the new one is a very good movie, but don't expect it to be a film. It's about blowing shit up, and a whole lot of shit gets blown up.

For the record, I think Brosnan does a great job, although not as good as Connery. Any other Bond isn't worth the shit he gets to blow up.

 

I agree.

Die Another Day is probably the worst Brosnan Bond, but it is still good.
We aren't talking about huge differences between movies anyway, the differecnces between Bond movies are: Who plays bond, who the girls he bangs are, and how many of said girls there are. All other differences are practically negligable (ie plot)

 

The chicks are getting better that's for sure. But I stopped paying attention to any realism or anything similiar when I saw brosnan fly in air faster than a crashing plane.

BTW, who are the bad guys these days? Rich arab oil pushing sheiks?

Just for the record, how many of you know and have seen the movie "Where Eagles Dare"? My all time favourite infiltration movie.

 

What's wrong with that? You'd understand if you knew about the aerodynamics and drag factors that are involved in the construction and use of a wing profile and thus planes.

In a free fall, the vortex drag on a wing in stall is so high, that the plane would fall incredibly slowly. It is in no way aerodynamic, as it is under powered flight.

A man with his arms by his sides, and thus preventing a low profile, has almost no vortex drag, and surprisingly less frinction drag than a falling plane, which is much larger and bulkier than the man. It is thus, that such a man, could fall nearly twice as fast as a falling plane under stall, and so that scene in GoldenEye is actually very realistic.

Trust me, my dad's a pilot, and there is so much aeronautical reading material lying around the house, that given time, I could answer most questions on this subject (although I don't want to, as I don't have the time to read all that material, so please don't ask and expect an answer within 3 months :???: ).

Also, Roger Moore's acting ability, and role as JB, was not that good. However, they are the most memorable films, because they introduced most of the technology, and alot of the new gadgets, and the 'gadgety profile' of the JB films during the Moore years. If you look at the Shaun Connery films, he uses surprisingly few gadgets, and most of them are either so far fetched as to be laughable, only just above the current level of technology, or mostly, something that has actually come to be an acheivable thing to do, and thus does no longer seem to be as 'gadgetty' as they once were.

Timothy Dalton was a surprisingly good actor, and only due to his age, did he do so few films. He brought the most depth to the character of JB, than any of the other actors, to date, but unfortunately, also had some of the worst scripts, which is a real shame, as he could have done so much in the role if he had better scripts.

George Lazenby was, in all honesty, crap. He couldn't act, he portrayed little emotion, or enthusiasm for the role, despite being the only one to experience the death of JB's wife, which you would have thought would involve just a touch of emotion. Not only that, but he smelled so repulsive, and had such bad breath, that the leading actress had to be forced to kiss him, and was paid a large amount of money in bonuses to do so.

Personally, I also think that Pierce Brosnan is a fairly good JB actor. He plays a good all-round character, although he doesn't seem to excel in any area, other than appearing 'distinguished' in the role. However, the most recent movie is supposed to be excellent (I haven't seen it yet ) and is a return to the more 'gadgety', action-fuelled, genre that originally made the James Bond films so popular.

 

Whatever you might say I still don't believe that a human being would descent faster than a falling plane. It has the "faster than a speeding blullet" sort of thing going. This isn't the matrix.

 

Unfortunartely, this is one case in which it really doesn't matter if it's believable or not, because it's scientifically true. A human being in that particular position would fall faster than a gigantic piece of burning metal.

 

Jinxed, just because you don't think it's true, doesn't change scientific fact. It's bloody obvious that a plane that was really only chugging along before falling off a cliff wouldn't fall very fast, because of (as Ferret said) it's very unaerodynamic profile.

Ferret, George Lazenby was (I'm ashamed to admit this) Australian. He only got the job because he fed the director a bullshit story about being Australia's best actor, when he hadn't even been an extra in a film here. Everyone will agree with you that he was a shitty actor.

Connery was good, but he was more the 'sex god' Bond, rather than the action Bond. Brosnan is good for action, Moore less so but he was also more of a ladies man. Haven't seen much of Dalton, but I think he was good as well.

 

What about terminal velocity Ferret? Two objects dropped at the same time from the same height will eventually fall at the same velocity regardless of weight. ie: a bowling ball and a bag of feathers. I know you're correct about a man falling faster initially, though.

 

That assumes a world with no friction. Both would have the same terminal velocity, but the drag produced by a larger object would slow it down.

 

Thanks for making it SO clear. I hope that statement made your day and improved your self esteem. Or something.

 

I agree with Jarinor - Connery was the 'sex-god' Bond, Brosnan the action Bond. Roger Moore was unlucky to be the 70's Bond (MOONRAKER, aka 'Aryans in Space' *shudder*), although I didn't like him much anyway.

1. Brosnan
2. Connery
3. Dalton

Anyway...Die Another Day isn't great - TWINE and Tomorrow Never Dies were better. Halle Berry wasn't that good, it had an abundance of bad jokes (even by Bond standards), and relied a little to much on the explosions.



***SPOILER THAT YOU PROBABLY WOULD'VE GUESSED ANYWAY***






I would've been more surprised if the all-but-standard betrayal DIDN'T happen in DAD - it felt like I'd already seen the movie.

 

What's up with you, being all grumpy and shit out of the blue? Get busted with pot? Another man approach you with a dirty proposition? Were you castrated?

 

I b4ng3d y0 m0m d00d!!1!