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 17
    More: Silly, Goldfinger, downtown Manhattan  
•       •       •

3643 clicks; posted to Business » on 24 Nov 2012 at 5:01 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-24 06:30:44 PM  
2 votes:

GAT_00: RoyFokker'sGhost: 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.

Exactly, that's what Bond is. Not a knockoff of Bourne. The movies and books may differ, but the movie Bond is a firmly established character. Craig obliterates that with no redeeming features.

People are saying this one is good, but that was said for the previous two Bond movies as well. I despised what they did to Bond with Casino Royale.


Trust me, by the end of Skyfall, you'll have a Bond that you'll enjoy in Daniel Craig. Maybe not your favorite, but certainly worthy of the character.

The quips are there. The confidence is there. Bond having fun on the mission is there. All the supporting characters Ian Flemming had in his books are there. It's a beautiful swan song for Judi Dench to say farewell, a great Bond villain, and a clean slate to start with for the next 50 years of Bond. Connery had the advantage in that Bond was already an experienced agent in Dr. No. Like I said before, the Craig movies show us a Bond starting to get established.
2012-11-24 05:21:23 PM  
2 votes:

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: My complaints with DAD is that it's too silly and goofy to watch, even by Bond movie standards. It starts out well enough, but once Madonna and Gustav Graves show up, the movie spirals to hell and never really recovers from there.


I quite like the swordfight, but really, it's terrible. It's a toss-up between that and Moonraker for worst Bond movie.
2012-11-25 07:05:13 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:49:26 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-11-24 11:34:47 PM  
1 votes:
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 08:21:47 PM  
1 votes:

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.


[SPOILER ALERT]

Craig actually does something similar in Skyfall after leaping onto a semi-destroyed train, but even more Bond-like; at around the halfway mark, he's attacked by several henchmen at a casino and has a quip ready after he feeds one to a komodo dragon (yes; there's a random pit filled with komodo dragons in the casino). That's classic Sean Connery era bond stuff.
2012-11-24 07:53:48 PM  
1 votes:

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Moonraker had Jaws AND a Shirley Bassey theme song.

Game, set, match.


Shirley Bassey, yes. Jaws, no. They had him meeting the girl with pigtails and wrecked his character.

And the story is just way over the top. Basically, the mass extinction of human life via a tiny orchid. It went beyond Bond and into Our Man Flint (which was somewhat a parody of Bond).Stromberg's plan might have been nuts, but it was at least, just about plausible.

The problems of Moonraker are also this: What happened to the flight control mooks? Were they told - hey, we're just going off to space, see you soon, or were they told that they and their families were going to die horrible deaths via an orchid? And what of all the perfect people who are going to recolonise the earth? Are you going to easily get hold of a few hundred people who are that good looking and don't care about their friends dying, and aren't going to mention that maybe you want to go checking out the skies for a massive space station (that somehow, doesn't appear on telescopes even though it's far bigger than the ISS). And are all those people going to be happy going back to earth and not just doing a lot of boning, but also being well, peasant farmers while you recreate enough people on earth to run all the stuff that you depended on before?
2012-11-24 07:29:38 PM  
1 votes:

karasoth: But you have a rebirth (which they hint in the movie)

He goes from being Bond the man, to Bond the legend.

The allusions to it were very good throughout the movie.

And he has a boogie man (unlike his Casino or Quantum Villians) more typical for your normal bond movies. And the Villian helps him become the legend by killing him


Too bad it all had to be at the expense of his Aston Martin.

I'm STILL mourning that.
2012-11-24 06:51:50 PM  
1 votes:

RoyFokker'sGhost: GAT_00: RoyFokker'sGhost: 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.

Exactly, that's what Bond is. Not a knockoff of Bourne. The movies and books may differ, but the movie Bond is a firmly established character. Craig obliterates that with no redeeming features.

People are saying this one is good, but that was said for the previous two Bond movies as well. I despised what they did to Bond with Casino Royale.

Trust me, by the end of Skyfall, you'll have a Bond that you'll enjoy in Daniel Craig. Maybe not your favorite, but certainly worthy of the character.

The quips are there. The confidence is there. Bond having fun on the mission is there. All the supporting characters Ian Flemming had in his books are there. It's a beautiful swan song for Judi Dench to say farewell, a great Bond villain, and a clean slate to start with for the next 50 years of Bond. Connery had the advantage in that Bond was already an experienced agent in Dr. No. Like I said before, the Craig movies show us a Bond starting to get established.


After watching Skyfall:

Casino/Quantum/Skyfall: Basically all three movies take bond to ground 0. At the end of Skyfall we can start doing gold finger and everything else again. The fundementals are all reset and you have a REASON to buy into Moneypenny/Q/and the New (old) M again. The relationships are all crafted in blood in skyfall. And I think that was the point of these three movies. To Reset bond and re-establish the fundementals. Thats a seriously ballsy gambit if I am right
2012-11-24 06:44:58 PM  
1 votes:
I still want Michael Wilson (producer and idea man behind Quantum of Solace) to suffer hard for that incredibly lame pay off. Our master scheme is .... charging poor people in a small country more for water! Bwwwahahahahaha! Why not have a James Bond film where Quantum installs a CEO of Hewlett Packard who runs the company into the ground! Or perhaps he could get involved in the tense negotiations for tenuring a professor of history at the sorbonne. Maybe there is a scheme to make a fake ATM that steals card info he could bust up.

I mean, jesus.
2012-11-24 06:17:47 PM  
1 votes:

Mugato: GAT_00: RoyFokker'sGhost: 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.

Exactly, that's what Bond is. Not a knockoff of Bourne. The movies and books may differ, but the movie Bond is a firmly established character. Craig obliterates that with no redeeming features.

People are saying this one is good, but that was said for the previous two Bond movies as well. I despised what they did to Bond with Casino Royale.

Bond is supposed to have fun killing people, chugging vodka, using ridiculous gadgets that can only be used once and dogging girls. He's not supposed to be a Jason Bourne-emo biatch.


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.
2012-11-24 06:03:09 PM  
1 votes:

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: My complaints with DAD is that it's too silly and goofy to watch, even by Bond movie standards. It starts out well enough, but once Madonna and Gustav Graves show up, the movie spirals to hell and never really recovers from there.


It started with Bond getting captured, tortured for a few months and disavowed by MI6. Great start. The villain's plan was to create a space laser to destroy the land mines between North and South Korea. Okay, fine, it's a Bond movie, not a bad plan. But then a Korean had to undergo some procedure to turn into a white guy and there's an invisible car...there is a line. I know that non Bond movie-fans might not get it but there is a line.
2012-11-24 05:58:37 PM  
1 votes:
Thunderball always seemed somewhat plausible: blackmail the UK/US by threatening to nuke a then-unknown major city (Miami) if they don't get £100 million in diamonds. They had the aircraft, they had the bombs, and it was all rather plausible and (for a Bond film) believable.

Skyfall, on the other hand, wasn't so good (the acting was great but the plot, not so much): the bad guy's evil plot (revenge against M) was nothing world-shattering, overly-elaborate, and just way too unrealistic. I found it difficult to suspend my disbelief with this one, much like Quantum of Solace (the bad guy's evil plan is controlling the water prices in Bolivia? ZOMG!). Fun movie, but a bit over the top.
2012-11-24 05:06:19 PM  
1 votes:

Mugato: Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Goldeneye

Plot: Alec Trevelyan (Sean Bean) wants to use an electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear weapon to bring London to its knees and destroy the Bank of England, but not before electronically stealing millions of pounds from the Bank's systems.

Plausibility: First of all, wouldn't destroying London and the Bank of England render the pounds you've stolen largely worthless? "Not exactly worthless, but close," says Dethier. Would you be able to convert it? "It's actually very hard to convert huge amounts of something, which is a problem the Chinese now know well with all their American dollar holdings," he says. So Trevelyan would have to spend all those pounds in the one country that'd take them: Britain. Whose economy he's just destroyed.


Well, nobody accused Boromir of being the sharpest sword in the armory.

He wanted to use the EMP to cover-up a bank robbery, not to destroy London. So the money would be transferred to somehwere else and the EMP would destroy any trace of the transfer but the money would still be in the bank of whatever country they sent it to.


More importantly, Trevelyan's overall motive was revenge against the UK. Even if he doesn't get rich, he'd accomplish that by wrecking their economy.
2012-11-24 04:49:49 PM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: Still better than Daniel Craig.


Oy... I dunno.

Daniel Craig was great in Casino Royale and Skyfall. Less so in QoS.

That said, Die Another Day is probably my least favorite of the official Bond movies. When you saw the CGI bullet travel through the gun barrel at the beginning, you knew you were in trouble.
2012-11-24 04:27:11 PM  
1 votes:

Mugato: He wanted to use the EMP to cover-up a bank robbery, not to destroy London. So the money would be transferred to somehwere else and the EMP would destroy any trace of the transfer but the money would still be in the bank of whatever country they sent it to.


Right, aye.

Still, he should've converted everything to Bison Bucks.


Mugato: They skipped Die Another Day. Admittedly it was pretty incomprehensible.


I just... gah.

No.

I watched that and Quantum of Solace over these past two days.

My complaints with QoS is that it doesn't really have the *feel* or *flavor* of a Bond movie (almost everything about it is bland and lifeless, from the Bond girl to the primary/secondary villains to the plot) and that everything is Shakycam'd to death in big scenes. Other than that, it *is* watchable and has some flashes of brilliance here and there.

My complaints with DAD is that it's too silly and goofy to watch, even by Bond movie standards. It starts out well enough, but once Madonna and Gustav Graves show up, the movie spirals to hell and never really recovers from there.
2012-11-24 04:07:15 PM  
1 votes:

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Goldeneye

Plot: Alec Trevelyan (Sean Bean) wants to use an electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear weapon to bring London to its knees and destroy the Bank of England, but not before electronically stealing millions of pounds from the Bank's systems.

Plausibility: First of all, wouldn't destroying London and the Bank of England render the pounds you've stolen largely worthless? "Not exactly worthless, but close," says Dethier. Would you be able to convert it? "It's actually very hard to convert huge amounts of something, which is a problem the Chinese now know well with all their American dollar holdings," he says. So Trevelyan would have to spend all those pounds in the one country that'd take them: Britain. Whose economy he's just destroyed.


Well, nobody accused Boromir of being the sharpest sword in the armory.


He wanted to use the EMP to cover-up a bank robbery, not to destroy London. So the money would be transferred to somehwere else and the EMP would destroy any trace of the transfer but the money would still be in the bank of whatever country they sent it to.
 
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report