Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Osato, Jan 19, 2015.
Maybe I'm a dummy but I can't find it.
Yes, on disc.
It would be nice if all of these extras from quantum of solace were released:
The more I watch QoS the more I like it. It’s a flawed film, but it seems in finished. I think I remember unconfirmed rumors that Forster wanted to do another cut of the movie. But I would take anything more extra-wise if ever released.
agreed. It has flaws but I like the pace and a lot of things about it.
I’m sure the special edition that was completed but unreleased is now lost. The one that got away for bond fans for sure.
The problem they faced with that movie is that the writer’s guild went on strike and they decided to shoot with an unfinished script rather than delay the release of the film - something that seems extra odd in hindsight given how many delays they accepted with each follow up film since.
That problem was compounded by bringing back Purvis and Wade to rewrite Paul Haggis. It seems to happen in cycles. Bond producers hire P&W. Then they hire a new writer to rewrite P&W. Then they like the new writer so they hire him to script the next film solo. They they reject the new writer’s ideas and bring back P&W.
The cynic in me says Casino Royale is so good because Haggis had the last draft on it, and QOS suffers in part because P&W got the final pass.
Casino Royale is great IMO, and ranks right up there with the best of the Bonds. It's too bad the Craig films that followed never quite lived up to it.
Fully agree. I like every Bond movie, even the bad ones. But I genuinely think Casino Royale was Craig’s best, and that each new one is he’s done has been less good than its predecessor. And yes, that means I like Quantum more than Skyfall.
Skyfall is my fav Craig film, and pretty close to the top overall.
the mgm home video agreement with fox is ending in June:
No time to die will be distributed by universal home video?
Yeah, mine, too, but it seems quite a lot of people don't care for it.
I believe so. The way I read the news, Universal is distributing internationally and domestic home video, but just for NTTD...
I don’t hate it, and I think it’s probably the most gorgeous looking of all the Bond movies, but it makes less logical sense than even some of Blofeld’s 60s machinations.
My biggest issue is the framing of Bond’s story arc: we just finish two films where he’s constantly berated and belittled and underestimated for being too young, too immature and too inexperienced, and then as soon as this film begins, he’s berated for being too old, too out of shape and too out of touch. So when exactly was Bond actually Bond in this continuity? Who thought this was a good idea?
Silva’s plan doesn’t make much sense. It felt like the writers were jumping on the “Dark Knight” bandwagon of having the villain intentionally allowing himself to be captured midway through the film as part of his master plan, but it had been ripped off by so many other blockbusters in the ensuing years (including in The Avengers earlier the same year as Skyfall) that it was stale by the time they did it - I remember when Bond movies innovated rather than copied.
But the thing is, it’s such a gorgeous movie to look at, that these things can be overlooked if I’m in the right mood.
My thought with the Bond films is that if each movie is going start with them showing you that it's somehow possible to bleed inside a gun barrel, then you don't take the rest of it seriously
That one didn’t start that way!
That's one of my big issues with Casino Royale - the whole "Bond begins" thing. Had they cast an actor in his early-20s, as was the original intention when they came up with the idea, it would have been fine. But they should have abandoned it when they decided to cast Craig, who was already in his late-30s at the time.
Him starting in his late-30's just makes sense.
How would he have graduated University then been in the Royal Navy long enough to achieve the rank of Commander (a senior officer) in his early 20's?
Connery was 31 and Lazenby was 29, and they were both playing Bond as a veteran agent.
And I would have been fine with those ages. That would have worked, too. Not early 20's though, which is what I was responding to...
I’m confused by some of the last handful of posts.
Are you guys arguing for or against raig’s age in the beginning.?