Super Sweet Movie Discussion Thread

The last of us. Just finished 3rd episode, it was a good one. I liked Bill's character, funny they wrote him in as gay but still played a great part.
That show brings out my anxiety. You know how much research I did on food prepping, route planning, and needed equipment to sustain life? Jesus. I even did research on owning a horse because...ain't no gas stations.
 
ok....Dune 2.

GREAT Movie, very enjoyable. For those who love the book and the lore.....its gonna piss you off a bit.

Saw it in IMAX yesterday afternoon, from a movie perspective it was fantastic. Can't complain.

From a book perspective they certainly made the battle for Arakis once the Emperor showed up happen in like a minute. The battle lasts a long time.

Original was a lot better at this. I think spending two feature films on one book is outstanding, but this could have been done a whole lot better from a book purist perspective.

The other thing I really hated is how easy it was to kill a Sardukar, they didn't show them teaching the weirding way to the Fremen. Didn't really get the prep that was done before they really got it on with the Harkonnens.

Which is something I have an issue with in film portrayal in Star Wars of Storm Troopers. Storm Troopers are legit.
 
I'm a James Bond fanatic and I'm getting the itch for a new movie. The last Bond movie was good but the ending left a serious hole in the continuity. I think this guy is a good actor and would make a fantastic James Bond, but he's in his late 40's so maybe just once.

Could Cillian Murphy be the new James Bond?

The Bond franchise lost me with the Roger Moore silliness. Daniel Craig and Casino Royale brought me back. They made Bond meaner, bloodier, tougher. The first three Craig movies were good…the fourth could’ve been better without the overexposed Christoph Waltz and his dentist chair. I thought the last Craig/Bond movie was unremarkable.
 
Saw it in IMAX yesterday afternoon, from a movie perspective it was fantastic. Can't complain.

From a book perspective they certainly made the battle for Arakis once the Emperor showed up happen in like a minute. The battle lasts a long time.

Original was a lot better at this. I think spending two feature films on one book is outstanding, but this could have been done a whole lot better from a book purist perspective.

The other thing I really hated is how easy it was to kill a Sardukar, they didn't show them teaching the weirding way to the Fremen. Didn't really get the prep that was done before they really got it on with the Harkonnens.

Which is something I have an issue with in film portrayal in Star Wars of Storm Troopers. Storm Troopers are legit.

This really incorporates much more of Dune Messiah.
 
ok....Dune 2.

GREAT Movie, very enjoyable. For those who love the book and the lore.....its gonna piss you off a bit.

I loved it. I also loved the book. The movie was beautiful, and I think the way the movie was meant to be seen, and the way Herbert said after writing it is that Paul is not the good guy. Messiah clarifies that, and Villanueva took parts of that to make the point clear.
 
Re: Bond

I did not hate Quantum and Spectre as much as some; it’s a tossup between Casino Royale and Skyfall for me, but I think I lean towards Skyfall. Even though I grew up in the 80’s, Daniel Craig will always be “my” James Bond, with Sean Connery a very close second. I just did not enjoy the campiness of some of the prior Bonds, Craig brought it home full circle for me.

That said, try as I might, I could not get into the final movie. Maybe because the ending was spoiled for me by the internet and I could not wrap my head around everything that was going on…plus the nano-bot thing reminded me of a Star Trek episode- they tried too hard to include too much and I just could not get into it. At some point, maybe this weekend, I’ll pour myself a long bourbon and sip my way through it.

Re: Continuity

I know I’m not the first to suggest this, but I’ve always believed just like Q and M are code name designations that can be interchangeable by whomever is filling those roles, so is “James Bond”. In the Bond the universe I believe in, the 007 destination is similar to an MOS, difference “double-oh’s” have different specialties based on the final number of their “double oh”.
 
I know I’m not the first to suggest this, but I’ve always believed just like Q and M are code name designations that can be interchangeable by whomever is filling those roles, so is “James Bond”. In the Bond the universe I believe in, the 007 destination is similar to an MOS, difference “double-oh’s” have different specialties based on the final number of their “double oh”.

There are purists out there who think there's one Bind, but I'm with you. I think the last movie even mentions assigning "double-oh" numbers that were...suddenly available.

I don't know if that was Fleming's intent or not with his series, but the movies are such a force of nature they are more canon than the books.

If they announced Idris Elba as the new Bond I wouldn't flinch. I would, not that it matters, refuse to see "Bond, Jane Bond" if that's where they take his identity. In our "all or nothing" belief system these days I guess that make me a hypocrite?
 
I loved it. I also loved the book. The movie was beautiful, and I think the way the movie was meant to be seen, and the way Herbert said after writing it is that Paul is not the good guy. Messiah clarifies that, and Villanueva took parts of that to make the point clear.

Agree, really good movie, very enjoyable....

My only real contentions are:

- second movie made Stilgar a weak character
- the ability to destroy the spice was not by atomics, and the relationship of the worms and the spice was one of the huge points in the book
- the split of north and south of the fremen was not a thing, and saw no real reason to have that spelled out.
- the spacing guild was not even mentioned in the 2nd movie...and they were a huge part of the ending and forcing the emperor and the other great houses bow to Pauls control of Arakis.
- no real mention of how Paul was now this all powerful being over the reverend mothers...

Some other minor things, that really don't matter.
 
There are purists out there who think there's one Bind, but I'm with you. I think the last movie even mentions assigning "double-oh" numbers that were...suddenly available.

I don't know if that was Fleming's intent or not with his series, but the movies are such a force of nature they are more canon than the books.

If they announced Idris Elba as the new Bond I wouldn't flinch. I would, not that it matters, refuse to see "Bond, Jane Bond" if that's where they take his identity. In our "all or nothing" belief system these days I guess that make me a hypocrite?

I see James Bond as an individual, but 007 as an issued code. But yeah there are theories that James Bond is a code name as well. My conclusion is that James Bond is his given name and that allows us to see him as a person. I've seen the movies and read the Fleming novels, and although he is a composite of several of Fleming's associates, Bond is a person with his own sensibilities that are ever present regardless of which actor is playing the part. He's a dude, he likes women and booze. He has a childhood history as James, and a dead ex-wife named Tracy Bond. Now If something were to happen to Bond, another agent with a different name could be issued the 007 designation.
 
Last edited:
Dalton suffered from some bad script writing. I think he could have been as good as Craig if he were given better material.
 
Back
Top