Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Badass Digest)   How Skyfall finally clears up one of the biggest questions of the James Bond mythos. (minor spoilers) Yes, George Lazenby and Daniel Craig are indeed playing the same guy   (badassdigest.com) divider line 185
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

12420 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 11 Nov 2012 at 10:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



185 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-11 06:55:48 PM  
Woody Allen is still his evil nephew Jimmy too, right?
 
2012-11-11 07:07:18 PM  
I have to say that I went to see this movie today with high expectations, given the amount of praise it's been receiving. And I left wanting to punch everybody who recommended it in their face. Jesus, awful, one of the worst Bond movies I've ever seen. "OMG THEY HACKED US." Christ.

I won't even bother ranting about all the plot holes and minor idiocies I hated, but just explain this to me: Why the fark wouldn't Bond have had an entire squad of agents or an army battalion waiting at the mansion with him? Q knew where the fark he was; why wouldn't there have been any support.

Dumb, stupid, grrr.
 
2012-11-11 07:38:32 PM  
The whole notion, in addition to the obvious plot holes, is farking retarded.

Every new 00 agent is going to be named "James Bond", despite his supposed to be a secret farking agent and yet he introduces himself as such. So in Tomorrow Never Dies for example, they go through the trouble of creating an entire work history of him as a mild mannered banker and he introduces himself as James Bond. They have to infer that he's a secret agent because his banker persona is too perfect, not because his name is James farking Bond and that's the standard MI6 name. It's farking stupid.
 
2012-11-11 07:47:39 PM  
All this logistical shiat happened because they thought they just had to "reboot" the franchise, starting Bond from the begging. It's one thing to change actors but now there's a Bond who's never seen the Cold War, yet has the same "M" who berated him as being a relic of the cold war. So now for some reason they're trying to jump through hoops to make everything fit.

/misses Brosnan
//just make these Bourne movies now
 
2012-11-11 07:54:33 PM  

Mugato: All this logistical shiat happened because they thought they just had to "reboot" the franchise, starting Bond from the begging. It's one thing to change actors but now there's a Bond who's never seen the Cold War, yet has the same "M" who berated him as being a relic of the cold war. So now for some reason they're trying to jump through hoops to make everything fit.


That's exactly it. There is no place for James Bond anymore, not in the modern world. He's an awesome relic of a very different order, and what he really deserved was one final great sendoff movie, not a bunch of studio idiots trying desperately to transform the ultimate Cold Warrior into some hybrid everyagent that will appeal to millenials for whom "Al Queda," not "the Soviet Union," is the ultimate face of evil. Utterly stupid, and sad, too. And this movie was just one more festering sore on that long-rotten carcass.
 
2012-11-11 08:00:13 PM  
I haven't seen Skyfall yet so I obviously will reserve judgement. Hated the last one with a passion but Casino Royale was pretty great, still no Live and Let Die but what is.

Why not just make these movies period pieces? Why put Bond in 2012 at all? Why not just make movie after movie of his adventures in the 1960s, with all the nifty cool cars and gadgets and sexy misadventures from the era? Bond doesn't need to exist in the 21st Century, but we could make lots of neat 21st Century movies about his exploits from a certain historical period where he makes sense.
 
2012-11-11 08:05:00 PM  

Confabulat: I haven't seen Skyfall yet so I obviously will reserve judgement. Hated the last one with a passion but Casino Royale was pretty great, still no Live and Let Die but what is.

Why not just make these movies period pieces? Why put Bond in 2012 at all? Why not just make movie after movie of his adventures in the 1960s, with all the nifty cool cars and gadgets and sexy misadventures from the era? Bond doesn't need to exist in the 21st Century, but we could make lots of neat 21st Century movies about his exploits from a certain historical period where he makes sense.


I've always felt that if they weren't going to go with the James Bond is the name you're given when you're assigned the position of 007 (and Felix Lighter is his CIA equivalent) then they should have just set all the movies in the 1960s, with actual 1960's tech.
 
2012-11-11 08:05:48 PM  

Confabulat: Why not just make movie after movie of his adventures in the 1960s, with all the nifty cool cars and gadgets and sexy misadventures from the era? Bond doesn't need to exist in the 21st Century, but we could make lots of neat 21st Century movies about his exploits from a certain historical period where he makes sense.


I've asked myself that same question many times. The only explanation I've heard is that there was a fear on the part of the studio that young people (i.e., most movie going audiences) wouldn't be interested in what would essentially be "historical" movies if they weren't satire/comic films (Austin Powers).
 
2012-11-11 08:10:27 PM  

Confabulat: Why not just make these movies period pieces? Why put Bond in 2012 at all? Why not just make movie after movie of his adventures in the 1960s, with all the nifty cool cars and gadgets and sexy misadventures from the era? Bond doesn't need to exist in the 21st Century, but we could make lots of neat 21st Century movies about his exploits from a certain historical period where he makes sense.


Heh, I remember as a kid on some board like Prodigy suggesting that they do that after the Cold War ended, before GoldenEye. I was wrong then but it doesn't seem like too much of a bad idea now. The problem is with the product placement. The cars and the booze they could still hock but not the phones, watches, computers, etc. And that's what Bond is all about, selling shiat.
 
2012-11-11 08:34:26 PM  
Too bad. I liked the idea of Bond as a code name. Works better over time that way.
 
2012-11-11 08:44:29 PM  
The Miss Moneypenny thing pissed me off. Waste of a perfectly lovely afternoon.
 
2012-11-11 08:44:43 PM  
By the way, I watched On Her Majesty's Secret Service for the first time in probably decades a few weeks back and it is a fine 007 movie, Lazenby wasn't bad at all.

But wow what a downer of an ending. Bond cradling his obviously dead wife in his arms while telling police "It's fine, she's just resting, we have all the time in the world" while the camera fades to black on the bullet hole through the windshield...well hell, that's no way to leave the theater. No wonder they went in a different direction next time.
 
2012-11-11 10:19:07 PM  

Confabulat: Why not just make these movies period pieces? Why put Bond in 2012 at all? Why not just make movie after movie of his adventures in the 1960s, with all the nifty cool cars and gadgets and sexy misadventures from the era? Bond doesn't need to exist in the 21st Century, but we could make lots of neat 21st Century movies about his exploits from a certain historical period where he makes sense.


They're afraid the under-25 set won't see it if it is set in the pre-iPod era.

I loved Skyfall. Not the best Bond ever, but tons of fun.
 
2012-11-11 10:21:00 PM  

slayer199: Too bad. I liked the idea of Bond as a code name. Works better over time that way.


Bond is a code-name, but not the way it's usually expressed. James Bond never walks up to the villain and says, "I'm Bond, James Bond." He's always using his unique cover ID for that particular mission. And then the mission record documents it as happening to James Bond. It's not his real name. It's not his name on the operation. It's the name put into the record to anonymize the operation.

Ghastly: then they should have just set all the movies in the 1960s, with actual 1960's tech.


Or set it in the 60s with 1980s tech, at least for the spies to use. Actually, that'd be a great premise- a 1960s spy hero with technology in spitting distance of our own, although slightly different in design. Having a smartphone in 1960 would be a farking super-power.
 
2012-11-11 10:22:30 PM  
I don't remember the Indiana Jones movies suffering at the box office because they took place in the 20th Century.
 
2012-11-11 10:22:36 PM  
I've favor the "007 is a Time Lord" explanation, myself, ever since Timothy Dalton showed up portraying the Lord President of Gallifrey on Doctor Who a couple years back.
 
2012-11-11 10:23:33 PM  
Craig and Lazenby weren't exactly playing the same man anyway. Or at least not in the same continuity/universe/whatever. Casino Royale was a hard reset. Judi Dench has played 2 different M's (or 2 parallel Earth versions of the same M if you like).
 
2012-11-11 10:25:51 PM  
I think someone should go back and re-watch the first twenty minutes of Casino Royale.

Daniel Craig's Bond is brand new, and either this guy is completely wrong or he's only partially correct and this is a different universe of Bond.
 
2012-11-11 10:27:21 PM  
Back in the days of TechTV there was this show I liked to watch called Spy School, or I think it was called that. I rather enjoyed the show. One episode had a former spy talking about when he was interviewing for the job of Spy. He was told to show up at this address and ask for a Mr. Pinkerton. They did the interview, then he was told to return and ask for him again. When he showed up again and asked for Mr. Pinkerton, it was not just a different person, but the two people looked nothing alike.

I always assumed that was true for the different James Bonds. There either never was a James Bond, or he was the very first, and every few years they promote a new person to the position of James Bond, a cover that goes so deep that since one of them got married, they all get promoted to a position that comes with a dead wife. This is the easiest way to explain why the M from the Bronson movies tells Bond in Casino Royal that it may have been a mistake to promote him. Hell, if not for that bit, we could almost assume Bond was a Timelord and he's died off screen a few times.
 
2012-11-11 10:28:25 PM  
Note to self: Bond nerds are bigger continuity jerks than comic book nerds.
 
2012-11-11 10:31:21 PM  

Pocket Ninja: I have to say that I went to see this movie today with high expectations, given the amount of praise it's been receiving. And I left wanting to punch everybody who recommended it in their face. Jesus, awful, one of the worst Bond movies I've ever seen. "OMG THEY HACKED US." Christ.

I won't even bother ranting about all the plot holes and minor idiocies I hated, but just explain this to me: Why the fark wouldn't Bond have had an entire squad of agents or an army battalion waiting at the mansion with him? Q knew where the fark he was; why wouldn't there have been any support.

Dumb, stupid, grrr.


That's unfortunate that your expectations weren't met. On behalf of everyone who loved and praised it, please don't punch us. In the face or anywhere else.
 
2012-11-11 10:31:40 PM  
I didn't like how they delved into his personal past and revealed that Bond is a family name (and that he was basically raised like Bruce Wayne). And the DB5 only further muddied the continuity question. Connery-Bond's car owned by Craig-Bond in a rebooted universe where they're the same person but not... I suppose we shouldn't put so much thought into this and just go with it.

/headache
 
2012-11-11 10:32:02 PM  
Have always thought of James Bond as the name given for context sake to a variety of characters. MI6, Q, M, and James Bond are all the staging ground to quickly bring us into a story line. Should the story benefit from reference to a previous story, this is thrown in. Expecting to maintain the precise continuity of the story through numerous writers, directors, actors, etc., is ridiculous. Apparently there are 6 bonds across 23 films with 11 different directors.

The gravestones might be to ground this Bond, not develop the mythos.
 
2012-11-11 10:34:52 PM  
Bummer. I always liked the idea that each of these Bonds was a new agent who took over when the last one died in action.

But if Daniel Craig is a reboot, doesn't that negate the previous twenty-some movies anyhow?
 
2012-11-11 10:37:58 PM  

Shadowtag: Note to self: Bond nerds are bigger continuity jerks than comic book nerds.


It's because the whole Bond franchise is such a mess that there's no hope for any continuity, which just makes some people search harder for it.
 
2012-11-11 10:38:54 PM  

slayer199: Too bad. I liked the idea of Bond as a code name. Works better over time that way.


I agree. Just say that there have been many 007s and all of them are named James Bond.
 
2012-11-11 10:40:17 PM  

Pocket Ninja: explain this to me: Why the fark wouldn't Bond have had an entire squad of agents or an army battalion waiting at the mansion with him? Q knew where the fark he was; why wouldn't there have been any support.


That's actually fairly simple. Because the baddie had owned MI6s systems, had they tried to move a tactical team to the house he would have seen that and not exposed himself.
 
2012-11-11 10:54:06 PM  
So, because of that throwaway "Wasn't so hard for the other guy" line of Lazenby's, can't we still say Bond is multiple characters?

This just means that Craig and Connery are the same Bond and the others are some other guy (the husband of Tracey Bond). This might even make sense with Casino Royale's beginning with M because the Connery Bond had been gone for x amount of years.
 
2012-11-11 10:55:13 PM  
They're the same person. Bond was in revenge mode in the beginning of Diamonds Are Forever looking for Blofeld, so at least Lazenby, Connery, and Moore are the same. They all had the same general mannerisms and relationships with M/Moneypenny/Q.

They're the same in the books with the exception of Carte Blance which was a reboot of the literary Bond.
 
2012-11-11 10:56:39 PM  
Good. Because that's a silly theory.

Is it that hard to accept that a different actor is playing the same character, who just always happens to be 30-ish years old, no matter when the story is set..?!

I mean, heck, there's been over a dozen Batmans (between film, TV, etc), and probably upwards of a hundred Sherlock Holmses.
 
2012-11-11 11:04:00 PM  
If you're wondering how he drives the same car, and other science facts,
Then repeat to yourself, "It's just a film, I should really just relax.
 
2012-11-11 11:05:50 PM  
I think it is safe to say then that there will not be a black Bond or a gay Bond or a female Bond or anything like that. If an MI6 character shows such a profoundly different trait, it will be a different character all together.
 
2012-11-11 11:16:35 PM  
I'm entertained the "James Bond is a Timelord" theory. My personal take on the theory is that "James Bond" and "Felix Leiter" crashlanded in their TARDIS onto the Skyfall estate in Scotland during WWII. The British, who were already well aware of the Doctor and his capabilities, knew they had a prize on their hands.The timelords both had amnesia due to the crashlanding and Bond was taken by the British government, and given the name of the owners of the property, while Leiter was taken by the American government. Q branch was built up to reverse engineer the TARDIS and the timelord technology contained within, the Americans also presumably help with it. Bond is able to maintain a human biology due to a fobwatch found in the TARDIS. So, the Bond we see in the films is all the same guy, just in different regenerations. Lazenby was a faulty regeneration, which is why he's played by Connery again in Diamonds are Forever. Bond completes his regeneration into Roger Moore after that.

At some point, in the 70s, the Americans manage to reverse engineer time-travel technology and send their version of Leiter into the 80s.

Daniel Craig's Bond is a result of the torture done at the beginning of Die Another Day. The rest of that movie is a fever dream induced by the torture and regeneration. Due to the regeneration, torture and already-damaged mental state, Bond is stripped down to a clean slate, which is why he has to work to regain his 00 status at the beginning of Casino Royale.

I also theorize that Moneypenny is a codename along with M and Q.

There you go, the goddamn nerdiest post you'll see today.

/am I ashamed?
//maybe
 
2012-11-11 11:19:58 PM  

noazark: Is it that hard to accept that a different actor is playing the same character, who just always happens to be 30-ish years old, no matter when the story is set..?!

I mean, heck, there's been over a dozen Batmans (between film, TV, etc), and probably upwards of a hundred Sherlock Holmses.


The difference is that the bulk of Sherlock Holmes all live around the year 1900 in London, and most have starred in similar versions of the same stories. It's not unlike the fact that hundreds of actors have played Hamlet over the years.

The Bond series is different as they're the same person when they need to be and they're different people in the role of the same character when it suits the writers.
 
2012-11-11 11:27:30 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: The difference is that the bulk of Sherlock Holmes all live around the year 1900 in London, and most have starred in similar versions of the same stories. It's not unlike the fact that hundreds of actors have played Hamlet over the years.

The Bond series is different as they're the same person when they need to be and they're different people in the role of the same character when it suits the writers.


Maybe it's just the comic book reader in me, but I don't really see why people get obsessed with the 'problem' of a sliding timeline, selective continuity and a main character who looks and/or acts differently every time a creative team changes.
 
2012-11-11 11:28:43 PM  

Pocket Ninja: "OMG THEY HACKED US." Christ.


I actually really enjoyed Skyfall, despite Bond still having a fractured psyche and him not sleeping around enough. I thought the movie was entertaining and hacking, while ripe for mockery (WHY DID HE PLUG A HACKER'S COMPUTER INTO A NETWORK?!?!) it is not out of the realm of possibility as a real issue these days.

Confabulat: Why not just make these movies period pieces?


Too late for that now, although it would be great because it allows for better stories. I can't imagine that a white British agent will ever get into a deep cover in Afghanistan.
 
2012-11-11 11:29:17 PM  
The continuity biatching is downright stupid. Not all the Bonds have to be the same person, it's entertaining spy movie, get over it.


Having said that, I think this is the best Bond movie ever. Prior to this I had felt Goldeneye was the best. So I got a HUGE kick out of Q mentioning the exploding pen.
 
2012-11-11 11:40:53 PM  
Wait, doesn't this make skyfall incongruous with the casino royale reboot and his origin story?
 
2012-11-11 11:44:00 PM  

t3knomanser: slayer199: Too bad. I liked the idea of Bond as a code name. Works better over time that way.

Bond is a code-name, but not the way it's usually expressed. James Bond never walks up to the villain and says, "I'm Bond, James Bond." He's always using his unique cover ID for that particular mission. And then the mission record documents it as happening to James Bond. It's not his real name. It's not his name on the operation. It's the name put into the record to anonymize the operation.

Ghastly: then they should have just set all the movies in the 1960s, with actual 1960's tech.

Or set it in the 60s with 1980s tech, at least for the spies to use. Actually, that'd be a great premise- a 1960s spy hero with technology in spitting distance of our own, although slightly different in design. Having a smartphone in 1960 would be a farking super-power.


Already been made and its called Archer
 
2012-11-11 11:51:37 PM  
This continuity issue should never even have risen. His name is James Bond, his designation is 007. Period. Same character played by five different actors in differeng eras. Not that complicated.
 
2012-11-11 11:52:29 PM  
For everyone who says each new actor is a different character... how do you explain this?

movieevangelist.files.wordpress.com

In the film chronology, James Bond is tracking Blofeld in the pre-title credits sequence of Diamonds Are Forever, but it is only assumed Bond is doing so to avenge Tracy's murder, as she is never mentioned.

Subsequent films reference the fact that Bond was previously married, but only fleetingly:

In The Spy Who Loved Me, when Bond meets Anya Amasova in the Mujaba Club bar, in Cairo, Egypt, she recites a few facts about his life, including that he had been married only once and that his wife was killed. Bond's eyes briefly glaze over and he then quickly changes the subject; Anya comments upon Bond's unexpected sensitivity regarding his marriage.

In For Your Eyes Only, in the pre-titles sequence, Bond lays flowers at Tracy's grave (in an English churchyard) before boarding a helicopter which Blofeld has booby-trapped. It is in this sequence that Bond ultimately avenges his wife's murder, by lifting an uncredited Blofeld's wheelchair with one of the helicopter's skids and eventually dropping him (wheelchair and all) down a tall industrial chimney. The headstone clearly reads: "TERESA BOND, 1943-1969, Beloved Wife of JAMES BOND, We have all the time in the World" - referring to the final words in On Her Majesty's Secret Service and the Louis Armstrong song.

In Licence to Kill, after Felix Leiter's wedding, Felix's new wife Della throws her garter at Bond, teasing him, "the one who catches this is the next one to..." Bond looks visibly pained; when Della asks Felix about it, Felix makes a short, sad reference to Bond once having been married, "but that was a long time ago."

In GoldenEye, Alec Trevelyan asks Bond if he has "found forgiveness in the arms of all those willing women for the dead ones you failed to protect?" Although the statement could refer to several women in Bond's past (including Aki, The Masterson Sister or Corinne Dufour), Tracy is obviously the most prominent woman he has "failed to protect."

In The World Is Not Enough, when Bond meets Elektra King at the construction site for the King Pipeline, she asks Bond "Tell me...Have you ever lost a loved one, Mr. Bond?", making a brief reference to the fact that she just lost her father (who was killed in the bomb's explosion at MI-6 headquarters). Bond again appears visibly pained, and changes the subject quickly.
 
2012-11-11 11:55:07 PM  

fusillade762: For everyone who says each new actor is a different character... how do you explain this?

[movieevangelist.files.wordpress.com image 585x231]

In the film chronology, James Bond is tracking Blofeld in the pre-title credits sequence of Diamonds Are Forever, but it is only assumed Bond is doing so to avenge Tracy's murder, as she is never mentioned.

Subsequent films reference the fact that Bond was previously married, but only fleetingly:

In The Spy Who Loved Me, when Bond meets Anya Amasova in the Mujaba Club bar, in Cairo, Egypt, she recites a few facts about his life, including that he had been married only once and that his wife was killed. Bond's eyes briefly glaze over and he then quickly changes the subject; Anya comments upon Bond's unexpected sensitivity regarding his marriage.

In For Your Eyes Only, in the pre-titles sequence, Bond lays flowers at Tracy's grave (in an English churchyard) before boarding a helicopter which Blofeld has booby-trapped. It is in this sequence that Bond ultimately avenges his wife's murder, by lifting an uncredited Blofeld's wheelchair with one of the helicopter's skids and eventually dropping him (wheelchair and all) down a tall industrial chimney. The headstone clearly reads: "TERESA BOND, 1943-1969, Beloved Wife of JAMES BOND, We have all the time in the World" - referring to the final words in On Her Majesty's Secret Service and the Louis Armstrong song.

In Licence to Kill, after Felix Leiter's wedding, Felix's new wife Della throws her garter at Bond, teasing him, "the one who catches this is the next one to..." Bond looks visibly pained; when Della asks Felix about it, Felix makes a short, sad reference to Bond once having been married, "but that was a long time ago."

In GoldenEye, Alec Trevelyan asks Bond if he has "found forgiveness in the arms of all those willing women for the dead ones you failed to protect?" Although the statement could refer to several women in Bond's past (including Aki, The Masterson Sister or ...



Precisely.
 
2012-11-12 12:01:03 AM  
since this is the "first" bond, maybe bond IS a codename -- it just started with daniel craig.
 
2012-11-12 12:02:04 AM  

Pocket Ninja: I have to say that I went to see this movie today with high expectations, given the amount of praise it's been receiving. And I left wanting to punch everybody who recommended it in their face. Jesus, awful, one of the worst Bond movies I've ever seen. "OMG THEY HACKED US." Christ.

I won't even bother ranting about all the plot holes and minor idiocies I hated, but just explain this to me: Why the fark wouldn't Bond have had an entire squad of agents or an army battalion waiting at the mansion with him? Q knew where the fark he was; why wouldn't there have been any support.

Dumb, stupid, grrr.


I hate to hear that, Ninja. I have also heard good things about the movie. Now, I'm gonna have to Redbox it.

/Shrug.
 
2012-11-12 12:05:23 AM  

fusillade762: For everyone who says each new actor is a different character... how do you explain this?

[movieevangelist.files.wordpress.com image 585x231]

In the film chronology, James Bond is tracking Blofeld in the pre-title credits sequence of Diamonds Are Forever, but it is only assumed Bond is doing so to avenge Tracy's murder, as she is never mentioned.

Subsequent films reference the fact that Bond was previously married, but only fleetingly:

In The Spy Who Loved Me, when Bond meets Anya Amasova in the Mujaba Club bar, in Cairo, Egypt, she recites a few facts about his life, including that he had been married only once and that his wife was killed. Bond's eyes briefly glaze over and he then quickly changes the subject; Anya comments upon Bond's unexpected sensitivity regarding his marriage.

In For Your Eyes Only, in the pre-titles sequence, Bond lays flowers at Tracy's grave (in an English churchyard) before boarding a helicopter which Blofeld has booby-trapped. It is in this sequence that Bond ultimately avenges his wife's murder, by lifting an uncredited Blofeld's wheelchair with one of the helicopter's skids and eventually dropping him (wheelchair and all) down a tall industrial chimney. The headstone clearly reads: "TERESA BOND, 1943-1969, Beloved Wife of JAMES BOND, We have all the time in the World" - referring to the final words in On Her Majesty's Secret Service and the Louis Armstrong song.

In Licence to Kill, after Felix Leiter's wedding, Felix's new wife Della throws her garter at Bond, teasing him, "the one who catches this is the next one to..." Bond looks visibly pained; when Della asks Felix about it, Felix makes a short, sad reference to Bond once having been married, "but that was a long time ago."

In GoldenEye, Alec Trevelyan asks Bond if he has "found forgiveness in the arms of all those willing women for the dead ones you failed to protect?" Although the statement could refer to several women in Bond's past (including Aki, The Masterson Sister or ...


Maybe the later Bonds pay tribute to the Connery one's wife for him? Or MI6 includes "hardened widower" in its criteria for the position?

/awards self one itsstillrealtomecryingnerd.jpg
 
2012-11-12 12:08:15 AM  
The movie is not bad. Unless you work in IT, in which case there are a few laughable parts. Either way, truly don't understand the "omgz it's awful" above. It's not even awful for a Bond movie, which, in general, are awful compared to just about anything but Romcoms.
 
2012-11-12 12:19:42 AM  
Bigger question: Why did they spend two movies building up Quantum and then completely disregarding them?
 
2012-11-12 12:20:18 AM  
Disregard rather.
 
2012-11-12 12:24:31 AM  

Lunchlady: Bigger question: Why did they spend two movies building up Quantum and then completely disregarding them?


Quantum, damn near klled' em?
 
2012-11-12 12:26:35 AM  

Gig103: I thought the movie was entertaining and hacking, while ripe for mockery (WHY DID HE PLUG A HACKER'S COMPUTER INTO A NETWORK?!?!) it is not out of the realm of possibility as a real issue these days.


Except that no one remotely trained in this area who plug in a unknown computer into your corporate network. No one. The fact their network even allowed it was completely insulting. It was unimaginative and lazy writing.

/especially an intelligence agency
 
Displayed 50 of 185 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report