Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

And the new James Bond movie will be called.......

methodtoll

By methodtoll,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

methodtoll Proficient

methodtoll

Posted
Posted

S.P.E.C.T.R.E

For all the die hard Bond fans out there, you may like this one because there are elements from the Fleming books and from the classic movies that are returning.

Including SPECTRE, which is the iconic terrorist organization seen through the classic Bond flicks with Sean Connery.

Rumor has it that Christoph Waltz will play Blofeld but again, just rumor.

Here is the synopsis:

A cryptic message from Bond's past sends him on a trail to uncover a sinister organization. While M battles political forces to keep the secret service alive, Bond peels back the layers of deceit to reveal the terrible truth behind SPECTRE.

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mr beauxjangles Newbie

mr beauxjangles

Posted
Posted

Get rid of Daniel Craig. He'll be bald soon. Pierce Brosnan was a way better bond. Craig has no presence and should never have been a leading man.

 

I am not a huge Daniel Craig fan, but you must be the first person to ever express this opinion. Pierce Brosnan is widely considered to be one of if not the worst Bond actors of all time along with Lazenby. Many regard Daniel Craig as one of the best, second only to Connery. Not saying this is my opinion, just stating what I have perceived to be the consensus. Personally, I have definitely preferred Craig over Brosnan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
methodtoll Proficient

methodtoll

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thoughts?

Stop remaking the same shít.

If I wanna watch James Bond, Batman, Halloween, etc there are 100s of movies to choose from. Try making something new.

Then don't post...

Never understand some people's logic on here....

Furthermore, it's not the "same poo" considering I only post on this about once every three years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PanthersClinic Newbie

PanthersClinic

Posted
Posted

I am not a huge Daniel Craig fan, but you must be the first person to ever express this opinion. Pierce Brosnan is widely considered to be one of if not the worst Bond actors of all time along with Lazenby. Many regard Daniel Craig as one of the best, second only to Connery. Not saying this is my opinion, just stating what I have perceived to be the consensus. Personally, I have definitely preferred Craig over Brosnan.

 

I grew up with Brosnan and the 007 movies he starred in were mostly bad. I don't believe it had anything to do with Brosnan, those films just had horrible scripts and dialogue.

 

My impression of Bond, not based on books or anything but the films I've seen, is that he is a sophisticated British gentleman. Craig simply does not have that super man appearance. His face and hair just don't scream superior genetics like Brosnan's did.

 

Craig looks more like an ugly Bond villain than Bond.

 

At the time I hoped they would pick Clive Owen instead of Craig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Waldo
      Clowney released

      By Waldo · Posted

      Even limited as he was I still don't think they have replaced his production, and not just the sack stats. The games Clowney missed it was very obvious what his value still was. Risky move but whatever. They only had 32 sacks last year and if that drops then it's going to get ugly. I see the improvement in run stopping but not in pass protect in any way.  
    • pantherclaw
      Houston Texans... You Suck!!!

      By pantherclaw · Posted

      I have zero issues with this.  
    • MHS831
      Panthers start making cuts to roster

      By MHS831 · Posted

      Sorta related.  I just looked up a stat:  Success rates for NFL draft's second rounders.  I was surprised that it is 49%.  The success rate for first rounders is 58%.   Here success does not mean those that did not bust, it means that roughly half of the players selected in the second round become full-time starters at some point in their careers.  Busts do that too.  However, considering the fact that a first round talent is worth up to 1800 points (first overall pick) more than the first pick of the second round and as low as 350 points (last pick in first round) higher than the last pick in round 2, it seems there could be cases in which it would be to your advantage to trade out of round 1 and draft two or three second rounders for the value.  Of course, the elite players are likely to be gone, and some positions overwhelmingly suck after round 1 (traditionally, like QB or LT, for example), but if you need to find starters at positions like DT, G, LB, S, C, TE, RB, etc, there could be a time when you trade back for more starters.  I was surprised that the margin between rounds 1 and 2 was only 9%.    While I realize that some of you sofa scholars are thinking, "Well duh?  Trading back gives you more players." as you wipe the Cheetos off your shirt.  Not the point.  The point is you have to consider the draft,the needs (and the number of them), and you need to scout the second and third rounds like you do the first, the cap, and the long-term impact.  If you can find 2 players with a 49% chance of becoming a starter, are you better off than drafting one player who has a 58% chance in the long term? So if I traded away my first rounder for two second rounders (a trade most teams would make) regularly, when I got 10 second rounders (by trading 5 first rounders), 5 would be starters.  If I did not trade and kept my 5 first rounders, 3 would be starters.  Furthermore, their rookie contracts would be much cheaper than the 5 first rounders. 
×
×
  • Create New...