Bond Bug
-
Posts
1,170 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Bond Bug
-
-
6 hours ago, angeldelmito said:
...you didn't see the burst of blood that came from the back of his head? look closer, my dear.
Oh yes, but most of the audience don't play that scene over and over to see it. If a bullet passes straight through the head, survival is better than if it bounces around in the head.
-
7 hours ago, angeldelmito said:
watch seconds 0:51-0:53 over and over again
I don't see any blood that wasn't already on him.
-
On 4/8/2016 at 11:53 AM, angeldelmito said:
i dont understand how they can bring him back lmao
He wouldn't be the first person to survive being shot in the head. Also, we saw no blood. Suppose he had been shot with blanks.
-
19 hours ago, The Panda said:
It seems like many people are completely missing the point of what systemic racism is and how it effects the academy and film industry.
Systemic racism isn't necessarily "everyone hating black people." Systemic racism is the overall exclusion of a particular race from a particular career, social class, etc. or that certain race being profiled (maybe not intentionally) more by law enforcement and thus leading to more of that race in a viscous law cycle. It's the reason why the reason there are more minorities in poverty than whites isn't because the white man worked harder to get there, it's that racism is structurally embedded in US society and minorities are still suffering from it and whites are still benefitting form it.
You also can't really compare how this affects one industry to another. For example, different kinds of musicians and sports players is a more demographically based explanation. Like how, Rap and R&B are more popular in inner "urban" communities, which are more demographically full of minorities for the reasons above of racism being structurally embedded into US society even to the point of where people live.
As for the film industry, it's not that minorities are less talented or less willing to act that they aren't proportionally represented in the film industry. It's more of how they get hired, and how it's easier for someone from an upper or more privileged class to get a good position within the industry. There's also the problems of casting directors often making an assumption that, unless stated otherwise, the role is white. It's subconscious, but it's still a racist result from how our society is structured.
Awards wise, in actuality, the average of minorities nommed in every category (not just acting) should be 2 minorities and 3 whites based on actual population, and that simply isn't true. One, for an undiverse voting base, and two from a lack of opportunity in the film industry for minorities when compared to whites.
I agree with what you say. In addition, the Black population is behind the curve in Hollywood, as it is in so many other areas, because Blacks were not given the opportunities in the past in a White-owned industry. There is still some catching up to do. Even when Black actors came to prominence in the 60s, they were playing Black stereotypes or showing what it was like to be Black in America, rather than being given roles based on talent, regardless of color, then we had the Blaxploitation era. Generally speaking, it has only been the last few decades that Blacks have been given roles that White actors might be given. With that level of unfairness, of course the academy and the industry is still a long way behind.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, 4815162342 said:
Agreed, Ian McKellen got robbed.
Ironic. I remember an interview with academy member Ian McKellen in which he said he didn't bother to watch all the movies he votes for.
-
Of course the academy is racist. It is racist as a group, by the nature of the proportion of older Whites in the academy being not reflective of the population, and by the fact that we know that in a large group of people, there will very likely be some who are racist. That is bound to affect the selection of nominees and the votes of those nominees. That is not to say that all, or the majority, of individual academy members are in any way racist.
Do all the academy members see all the movies and the performances that they vote for? Of course not. They will vote for many reasons beyond the performance and they are influenced by many factors, whether it is down to how good the marketing is that is aimed at academy members, or if they know somebody involved in the movie, or if they have a positive impression based on reviews. There could be a hundred reasons, but in addition, I would hazard at a guess that older White academy members are more interested in and more informed about "White" movies than "Black."
-
I believe that Bradley Cooper is the only actor to have starred in a $100m hit released each year this decade up to 2014, so he needs this to do well to continue that record. In fact, his run started in 2009 with The Hangover.
-
1 hour ago, redfirebird2008 said:
Based on this logic, Thunderball is better than Dr. No and From Russia With Love combined. The Dark Knight Rises is 3 times better than Batman Begins. All three Pirates sequels are about twice as good as the first Pirates movie. And on and on and on. James Bond is a popular franchise and is going to make a ton of money no matter what, especially coming off Skyfall. Quality does not equal box office and box office does not equal quality.
If a review is about the quality of the filmmaking, then yes I agree. But in my book a review should be about more than quality. It should be about the experience.
-
1 hour ago, redfirebird2008 said:
And if they gushed praise about it, you would call them brilliant. The movie is not perfect and it's way longer than it should be. There is nothing wrong with people voicing complaints.
The fact that the movie has certain Bond cliches might be an issue to them, but do these box office numbers look like the audience agree?
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, mepal1 said:
Forget RT, it has been observed that many of the reviews there were posted by attention seeking people from 3rd rate, low circulation publications (mainly US).......who were just posting hatred comments to boost their magazines circulation.
The official reviews from the media, and national newspapers were more realistic....................anyway, its the public's, word of mouth that really counts!
Those American reviewers are too pompous or delusional to understand that the new Bond movie does not have to be Skyfall 2.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Bond Bug said:
Yes, in three weeks.
Make that less than two weeks!
-
42 minutes ago, Bernie86 said:
Can SPECTRE beat Avatar?
Yes, in three weeks.
-
1
-
-
By end of day, Sunday, Spectre should land about half way between the total grosses of Toy Story 3 and Titanic, placing it at number four on the all-time chart.
1 
*
Skyfall 102.9 2012 2 Avatar 94.0 2009 3 Titanic 80.1 1998 4 Toy Story 3 74.0 2010 -
2
-
-
20 hours ago, grim22 said:
This guy sitting behind me in the cafeteria at work is downright ranting about this movie. He apparently has all the Bond movies on his phone and was "crushingly disappointed" by this one because "it felt like a cheeky Roger Moore movie". The guy sounds pissed and turned off his 3 coworkers from watching this.
A cheeky Roger Moore movie? Sounds perfect to me. I don't know what he has to complain about.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:
Spectre has taken the franchise to lows domestically that all of the 1990's and 21st century films worked hard to stay away from. Somebody tell me how something didn't go wrong?
I can tell you a few things that didn't go wrong. $100m already in the UK, with a population that's a fifth of USA. The biggest ever Saturday in Germany. Mexico opening doubled Skyfall. Perhaps $800m worldwide. Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. Over 6 in 10 critics gave it the thumbs up.
-
1 hour ago, Ozymandias said:
They need a Trump, Sony people are incompetent and low energy.
You mean a bankruptcy costing creditors $1.9 billion?
-
3
-
-
On 11/8/2015, 5:01:56, The Dark Alfred said:
It won't come close to Skyfall, Bond 23 had a very very long run. Spectre will be dead by the end of the month.
I think that's a bit of an exaggeration to say Spectre will be dead in the UK in three weeks.
-
Spectre is already well inside the UK top ten grossing movies, flying by the total runs of Quantum of Solace and Casino Royale. It should be the fourth highest grossing movie of all time in the UK by next weekend!
1 *
Skyfall 102.9 2012 2 Avatar 94.0 2009 3 Titanic 80.1 1998 4 Toy Story 3 74.0 2010 5 *
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 73.1 2011 6 *
Mamma Mia! 68.5 2008 7 *
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone 66.1 2001 8 Jurassic World 
63.7[2] 2015 9 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 63.0 2001 10 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King 61.1 2003 11 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers 57.6 2002 12 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace 56.4 1999 13 *
The Dark Knight Rises 56.3 2012 14 *
Casino Royale 55.6 2006 15 *
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets 54.8 2002 16 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest 52.5 2006 17 *
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 52.5 2010 18 The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey 52.3 2012 19 *
The Full Monty 52.2 1997 20 Marvel Avengers Assemble 51.9 2012 21 *
Quantum of Solace 51.2 2008 -
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, misafeco said:
Of course audience reaction matters, if a movie has good WOM that helps the box office. But i think CS is pretty useless unless it's very good (A+) or very bad (C or worse). If a franchise movie comes out the first people who go to the cinema are the fans, so the CS will be good unless the film is garbage.
How would you know if a movie wasn't A+ or C, if CinemaScore is useless?
-
1 minute ago, misafeco said:
CinemaScore doesn't mean anything.
Are you saying the methodology used by CinemaScore to gauge audience reaction is flawed? Or are you saying audience reaction doesn't mean anything?
-
CinemaScore gave Spectre A-, showing the pompous USA critics failed to see the movie for the pure escapism that it is.
-
15 minutes ago, Purple Minion said:
It got an A- on CinemaScore, though. Is there anything similar in the UK?
Yes, the American critics are out-of-touch with the audience.
-
9 minutes ago, bapi said:
61% on RT and 59 on Metacritic so it's in yellow now.
The way it is falling on RT, it's going to be the worst Bond movie for 30 years. This will probably mean Craig is definitely back for the next one, because he won't want to leave after a critical failure, and all involved are going to have to up their game next time.
-
1 hour ago, bapi said:
RottenTomatoes -- 62%
MetaCritic -- 61
It's fresh! What are people complaining about?
Weekend Prediction thread 6/21-6/23 Play the Derby
in Box Office Derby
Posted
It seems that every weekend Jumanji and Showman beat most predictions. It seems they are heading for 400 million and 200 million, respectively. With so little new competition next weekend, they should have really strong holds.