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.

(Vulture)   Ask an Economist: which Bond villain plan would have worked (and which would have not)   (vulture.com) divider line 73
    More: Silly, Goldfinger, downtown Manhattan  
•       •       •

3640 clicks; posted to Business » on 24 Nov 2012 at 5:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-24 08:42:32 PM

RoyFokker'sGhost: karasoth:
I will also add in Never Say Never Again in large part because of the effort they made in showing mortality in Connery as Bond


Never Say Never Again is in no way essential. It is the very definition of non-essential to the Bond franchise. Why not list 'Thunderball' instead since it's the exact same movie with the exact same actor playing Bond. And superior in every way.


Connery's acting is better IMO and if I was going to swap it out I would go with Diamonds are Forever over thunderball
 
2012-11-24 09:11:17 PM
I'm old. I read the books in the 1960s before I saw any movies. I think my Dad took me to Thunderball, or one of those around that time. Casino Royale is the best Bond film since the Connery era. I like Mr. Craig. Sorry, GAT.
 
2012-11-24 09:12:26 PM

revrendjim: I'm old. I read the books in the 1960s before I saw any movies. I think my Dad took me to Thunderball, or one of those around that time. Casino Royale is the best Bond film since the Connery era. I like Mr. Craig. Sorry, GAT.


Skyfall is so much more better.
 
2012-11-24 09:17:22 PM

karasoth: RoyFokker'sGhost: karasoth:
I will also add in Never Say Never Again in large part because of the effort they made in showing mortality in Connery as Bond


Never Say Never Again is in no way essential. It is the very definition of non-essential to the Bond franchise. Why not list 'Thunderball' instead since it's the exact same movie with the exact same actor playing Bond. And superior in every way.

Connery's acting is better IMO and if I was going to swap it out I would go with Diamonds are Forever over thunderball


There are only two good things about Diamonds are Forever, and her name is Plenty.
 
2012-11-24 10:41:26 PM

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Well, nobody accused Boromir of being the sharpest sword in the armory.


What you did there? I saw it.

/On PBS.
 
2012-11-24 11:02:10 PM

GAT_00: Mugato: GAT_00: What I think of when I think of Bond is Brosnan in his windowless boat/sub, calmly fixing his tie while he's ducking the bridge.

Brosnan was the best Bond, IMO, even if he didn't have all the best scripts.

I don't know if I'm willing to elevate him over Connery, but Brosnan is easily the second best. Even with godawful scripts, those are good movies.


Well aside from Die Another Day I wouldn't say the Brosnan Bond movies had "Godawlful" scripts.
 
2012-11-24 11:12:55 PM

GAT_00: Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Daniel Craig was great in Casino Royale and Skyfall. Less so in QoS.

Casino Royale was a pile of shiat. That movie was godawful. I refuse to watch any of Craig's movies.


Too bad. Skyfall is very very good.
 
2012-11-24 11:34:47 PM
OHMSS is horrible. Dvr'ed it last week, watched it half-heartedly, was going to give it a 2nd chance, but bailed. Combination of bad script and Lazenby in equal parts.
 
2012-11-24 11:38:14 PM

McManus_brothers: karasoth: RoyFokker'sGhost: karasoth:
I will also add in Never Say Never Again in large part because of the effort they made in showing mortality in Connery as Bond


Never Say Never Again is in no way essential. It is the very definition of non-essential to the Bond franchise. Why not list 'Thunderball' instead since it's the exact same movie with the exact same actor playing Bond. And superior in every way.

Connery's acting is better IMO and if I was going to swap it out I would go with Diamonds are Forever over thunderball

There are only two good things about Diamonds are Forever, and her name is they belong to Plenty.

 
2012-11-24 11:52:36 PM
Licence to Kill is probably the most underrated film throughout the franchise. Franz Sanchez is among the greatest villains of all. Monstrous, intimidating, yet still exuding confidence and class. Dominic Green from Quantum of Solace has to be the most boring, uninteresting villain of all. When Sanchez lost his shiat, it was terrifying. When Green lost his shiat, it was goofy.

LTK is everything QoS should have been but wasn't.
 
2012-11-24 11:59:26 PM

Bith Set Me Up: Licence to Kill is probably the most underrated film throughout the franchise.


THIS.
 
2012-11-25 12:49:26 AM

John Buck 41: OHMSS is horrible. Dvr'ed it last week, watched it half-heartedly, was going to give it a 2nd chance, but bailed. Combination of bad script and Lazenby in equal parts.


THANK YOU; shiat sucked from the first 5 minutes, it made a joke about a new bond. Took me totally out of the movie and made me think it was a damn parody. fark that.
 
2012-11-25 02:16:44 AM
I stopped reading when an "economist" declared Goldfinger's plan to irradiate the gold in Fort Knoz as "plausible".

You know who will never come within 20 miles of whatever gold resides in Fort Knox? 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% of humanity.

Unless it was outright destroyed, it matters not that it is temporarily unsafe to handle. It may be irradiated, but none of the currency that it is propping up is, so who cares?
 
2012-11-25 03:49:41 AM

Funbags: I stopped reading when an "economist" declared Goldfinger's plan to irradiate the gold in Fort Knoz as "plausible".

You know who will never come within 20 miles of whatever gold resides in Fort Knox? 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% of humanity.

Unless it was outright destroyed, it matters not that it is temporarily unsafe to handle. It may be irradiated, but none of the currency that it is propping up is, so who cares?


Economics is a very odd area of study. I've seen lots of perfectly good uses for it. None of those things seem to be the actual economy, however. When it comes to talking money, economists all strike me as being completely disconnected from reality. Sports predictions? Sure. Election outcomes? Wonderful work done there. How the economy functions? Almost nothing I've read matches actual historical outcomes. The economist in this article is an example of this.
 
2012-11-25 05:39:34 AM

RoyFokker'sGhost: Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: farkeruk: I quite like the swordfight, but really, it's terrible. It's a toss-up between that and Moonraker for worst Bond movie.

Moonraker had Jaws AND a Shirley Bassey theme song.

Game, set, match.


GAT_00: Casino Royale was a pile of shiat. That movie was godawful. I refuse to watch any of Craig's movies.

Fair enough. Agree to disagree and the like.

I have a friend that's a huge Bond fan and he's of the same opinion: he disliked Casino Royale so much that he skipped QoS and I'm having to coax him into seeing Skyfall. I think the issue that a lot of Bond fans have with the Craig era is that he's not suave and sophisticated; which I agree. However, in the long view, we've gone from a very rough 'blunt instrument' in Casino Royale and have ended up with something closer to the Sean Connery-style of Bond by the end of Skyfall. I've always viewed Craig's Bond as a work in progress: we see his development from fresh initiate into the 00 ranks into the elite agent that we all want to see. And I've found it pretty fascinating, myself.


Your friend is not a Bond fan. Not of the literary Bond anyway. Tell him to go read the original novels. CR has the closest plot to what Fleming wrote since From Russia With Love.
 
2012-11-25 07:05:13 AM

GAT_00: Mugato: GAT_00: What I think of when I think of Bond is Brosnan in his windowless boat/sub, calmly fixing his tie while he's ducking the bridge.

Brosnan was the best Bond, IMO, even if he didn't have all the best scripts.

I don't know if I'm willing to elevate him over Connery, but Brosnan is easily the second best. Even with godawful scripts, those are good movies.


I like the Bronsan movies because they are the ones that came out when I first started to watch bond. Along with that, the special effects look more realistic. I am sure that for the next generation, those born after 2000, they will feel the same way about the David Craig films.

That being said, I hated Die Another Day because they tried way too much. Along with that, I dearly hope they do not remake any of the prior films so they more realistic.
 
2012-11-25 07:06:17 AM
David Niven was the best Jame Bond in the best James Bond movie.

Yes, I went there.
 
2012-11-25 07:14:02 AM

BolloxReader: How the economy functions? Almost nothing I've read matches actual historical outcomes. The economist in this article is an example of this.


It's a piece of entertainment and for all we know, altered by the journalist.

The thing is that economists (or the ones i read) actually get an awful lot right about outcomes. Of all the people you could listen to about say, government policy, economists are about the best, because unlike politicians or journalists who just have a "feeling" that something is right, or preach to a particular choir, economists actually look at the numbers.

Take the London Olympics. The politicians, LOCOG and journalists all talked about how we'd have a boom of tourism. What did the economists say? No, we won't. Why? Because they'd looked at the effect of previous Olympic Games in terms of numbers, could see nothing different about the London ones and called it right.

One problem is that journalists distort who "economists" are by talking about people who are actually pundits, government advisors, politicians, bankers and other n'eer do wells. They blame the crash on economists, when the problem is that everyone ignored the economists who will tell you exactly how to stop land value speculation (by taxing land values instead of incomes).
 
2012-11-25 10:13:04 AM
Hijack a nuke and hold the world ransom for 1 million dollars?
 
2012-11-25 04:00:18 PM

farkeruk: BolloxReader: How the economy functions? Almost nothing I've read matches actual historical outcomes. The economist in this article is an example of this.

It's a piece of entertainment and for all we know, altered by the journalist.

The thing is that economists (or the ones i read) actually get an awful lot right about outcomes. Of all the people you could listen to about say, government policy, economists are about the best, because unlike politicians or journalists who just have a "feeling" that something is right, or preach to a particular choir, economists actually look at the numbers.

Take the London Olympics. The politicians, LOCOG and journalists all talked about how we'd have a boom of tourism. What did the economists say? No, we won't. Why? Because they'd looked at the effect of previous Olympic Games in terms of numbers, could see nothing different about the London ones and called it right.

One problem is that journalists distort who "economists" are by talking about people who are actually pundits, government advisors, politicians, bankers and other n'eer do wells. They blame the crash on economists, when the problem is that everyone ignored the economists who will tell you exactly how to stop land value speculation (by taxing land values instead of incomes).


Maybe that's the case. But it still doesn't make economics credible when "real" economists aren't being heard from. Everything I read is hyperpartisan and clearly rooted in either "government can do no good and has no role in a healthy economy" or "government can do no bad" ideology. On the other hand, I tend to read stuff from US economists on the US economy because that's where I live and what affects me most directly. That may be my problem.
 
2012-11-25 05:29:30 PM

BolloxReader: Maybe that's the case. But it still doesn't make economics credible when "real" economists aren't being heard from. Everything I read is hyperpartisan and clearly rooted in either "government can do no good and has no role in a healthy economy" or "government can do no bad" ideology.


Which economist is saying that?
 
2012-11-25 08:51:47 PM

John Buck 41: Too bad. Skyfall is very very good.


[SPOILER ALERT]

My biggest complaint is that Silva correctly predicted everything MI:6 would do while apprehending him and planned accordingly. However, the final step of his plan was to walk into Parliament with three dudes armed with pistols and then... what? Shoot M and run?

My smaller complaint was when Bond falls into the ice and Silva basically goes, "Man, Bond has been in that water for like 18 seconds now. He's probably dead. Bye!" Meanwhile, Bond is literally launching flares under the ice and has already escaped one water-related death that I'm assuming Silva the super hacker knew about.

Otherwise, Skyfall kicked ass.
 
2012-11-26 08:46:33 PM
I've kinda enjoyed the fresh reworking of bond. QoS was bad though, but understandably bad. It was getting underway and then crippled by the writers strike. This ultimately left the director and Daniel Craig having to write the scenes themselves and relying on improv during the day. MGM the studio that does bond films couldn't postpone because of the serious debt problems they were having during the huge recession you might remember us having.

Bad but, to be fair concerning how it got made, a decent pull off.
 
Displayed 23 of 73 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report