Casino Royale Quotes
- Casino Royale Quotes
- Casino Royale Quotes - BookRags.com
- James Bond opening lines - shortlist.com
- Casino Royale Book Quotes. QuotesGram
- Ian Fleming Quotes (Author of Casino Royale)
- Casino Royale (James Bond #1) Quotes - MagicalQuote
- Ian Fleming Quotes - BrainyQuote
- Casino Royale - James Bond Quotes
- Casino Royale Quotes by Ian Fleming - Goodreads
- Casino Royale Quotes Course Hero
casino royale book quotes
casino royale book quotes - win
Could somebody explain the context of this quote from the Casino Royale book?
“History is moving pretty quickly these days and the heroes and villains keep on changing parts.”
submitted by k0fi96 to JamesBond [link] [comments]
For Your Eyes Only: What if...
SPOILERS:
For Your Eyes Only Movie & You Only Live Twice Book Spoilers
DO NOT READ AHEAD UNLESS YOU HAVE WATCHED "FOR YOUR EYES ONLY"
FYEO is such a marvelous film, it has real intrigue, the viewer is genuinely in the dark about the plot, the storyline seems plausible and feels like an extension of Dr. No and FRWL which were darker, smarter espionage films. The mountain climbing scene is especially a masterpiece in suspense.
For Your Eyes Only was directed by John Glenn, who was assistant director on OHMSS. The parallels have been spoken of before, the aesthetics are similar too, the most obvious call back being Teresa's grave and the "Unnamed Blofeld" track, albeit very flippantly done.
A recurring theme in FYEO is Bond warning Malena of the consequences of blind revenge. The narrative does give her a justification to want it, the killing of her parents is front and centre, we see her rage and are meant to empathize with her.
However, Bond consistently attempts to deter her from exacting revenge, all the way to the end when he stops her from killing the main villian. This is undercut by Bond as a character who has exacted revenge for fallen colleagues, and in the PTS of this very movie, murders the man who killed his wife.
Now, there are ways to excuse this, Bond is an agent, killing Blofeld was self defence, Malena is a civilian and may die trying to fight back, etc
But John Glen had a better way of including this into the storyline, tone and even theme of the film.
This was a preface to my WHAT IF:
Now imagine this:
The movie opens with Bond at Teresa's grave, a colleague comes with a message: "We Have Found Corona"
Ironically, this was Blofeld's codename within MI6 in the book YOLT.
Blofeld wouldn't even have to be named, as they wouldn't have due to legal hassles.
Bond's colleague could be a junior or even a 00. Let's say he was 009. They both go on an off-the-book mission to find Blofeld.
After investigations and ruthless murders shown in a montage, Bond and 009 reach Blofeld.
Blofelds men end up murdering 009. Bond gets the jump on them, and eventually gets to Blofeld. James Bond finally fights Blofeld, man to man, and then strangles him to death like in the literary iteration.
After having completed what he set out to do, Bond feels nothing, no sense of relief, no achievement and no modicum of peace. He has lost one of his best friends in the service, and is numb and broken.
This would be the beginning of FYEO. It would have been a fresh dark take after the levity of the last few films
Till today, we have never got a satisfactory and conclusive Bond - Blofeld showdown.
It would have also been a direct sequel of sort to OHMSS, and would have, for once closed, the Blofeld chapter in this timeline.
It would also set up Bonds desire to deter Malena from the path of vengeance. It would also give new meaning to Bond's quote:
"The Chinese have a saying: "When setting out on revenge, you first dig two graves"
Roger Moore was criminally underused as a dramatic performer. He was a gifted actor and would have done incredibly well in the darker scenes.
I've always felt that OHMSS and FYEO are the precursors to Licence To Kill, Casino Royale and Skyfall.
These are films that are driven by the pathos of Bond. They really bring out his character and emotions.
FYEO is a beautiful film, and in my ten favourite Bond Films. A start like this would have made it a masterpiece. Anyway, that's what I wish had happened.
submitted by Lebelge99 to JamesBond [link] [comments]
Did movies survived up to today despite the outcry that TV will kill cinema thats been around since the 50s is because films have been far superior in quality to TV until about the last 15 years? That people were willing paid pricey tickets despite free entertainment on OTA TV before 1970s cable?
Inspired by a post I saw.
In fairness to actors who viewed TV as beneath them ... for a very long while they were totally right. Television has only actually gotten good in the last decade and a half. It's like OP's argument about video games: you can enjoy TV from earlier, but you can't claim that it genuinely competed with books or film. It was just kind of shit across the board.
Indeed despite how mainstream news media esp Newspapers have been crying out loud that television will kill the film medium, movies have survived all the way to today. Despite mainstream news since the 50s stating TV will steal away the movie industry's customer because its free (before the rise of cables in the late 70s), people still continued to pay pretty expensive prices just to see a movie for a one-time view.
So many theories arise the dominance of television did not completely kill movies and movies still continue to be profitable up until today and one of them is the quote above about how despite being free, TV shows were pretty crap through and through until recent time and the best TV shows could not hold a candle to good or even just subpar movies nevermind Academy Award winning stuff.
I actually am beginning to believe this is the case. I am watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the
MASTERPIECES of television of the 90s and I also did a Charmed rewatch back in August and am on a Beverly Hills 90210 rewatch as will as just started on Xena. I thought these shows were the best things ever growing up but uuugggh they are so hard to get through today esp since I'm also doing a viewthrough of Audrey Hepburn's completely filmography and other Golden Age Hollywood stars. The differences in quality in everything from acting to writing and music blows away Xena and Buffy. There is simply no comparison. Charmed and 90210 cannot touch even lesser known stuff like Gene Tierney's movies.
The only TV show I'm watching ATM that I can honestly say matches cinema standards is Alias and while its so damn good it legitimately beats your run of the mill Spy films and even the weaker James Bond movies, it cannot hold a cradle to From Russia With Love, GoldenEye, and esp Casino Royale and Skyfall.
So I completely believe the quoted text above and the theory that television was far below other mediums at the time except maybe comics that was why people continued to pay expensive tickets to see movies and while film continues to survive until today.
Your opinion? What arguments can you come up with whether this is true or false?
submitted by EvaWolves to cordcutters [link] [comments]
Notes from WOR - Tony Khan Interview
Dave Meltzer and Bryan Alvarez interviewing with Tony Khan No need to make 20+ threads of quotes from an interview I've got you covered
- Tony is really excited about Full Gear
- Tony had an idea based from an episode of South Park (Wendy breaking up with Stan) that had a song "Don't know what you got till it's gone" as a video package for Kenny/Hangman in the lead up to Full Gear, Kenny liked it whilst Hangman hated the idea but when he saw it he loved it.
- Tony talks about Cody being really high on signing Darby Allin when AEW was formed
- Orange Cassidy was brought in at the 2019 Double or Nothing Casino Royale due to Brian Cage, saw the reaction he got when he appeared and was interested right away
- Before signing Orange Cassidy there was a few things he was interested and some things uninterested (wasn't specific but you can probably guess), Bucks went to bat for OC, Tony became more interested when Matt brought up that OC used to be known as 'Fireant' (a stable from Chikara)
- Tony planned to have PAC wrestle against OC at Revolution, got PAC to say 'what is this a joke?!' when OC appeared and knew that the crowd was gonna chant 'His gonna try' and when it worked it was happiest moments
- Dave asks about the PAC situation, "The only people that know it's me and him" Tony replies "The problem is not getting him here it's getting him home"
- Dave praises Tony about keeping adhere to the stipulation rule with Cody never getting a shot at the AEW World Title, talks about promoters in the past always keeping adhere to the stipulation an example Dave brings up was Paul Heyman booking Axl vs Ian Rotten in ECW as the 'Last Ever' fans wanted to see another match, Paul stuck to his words then fast forward to now fans become sensitised to seeing stipulations being made but end up being forgotten after two weeks
- One of the head scratchers for Tony Khan was a match from Dominion (Funny enough it's not Evil vs Naito, the title change he felt was strange), appreciates Gedo as a booker (understands the stuff that happens behind the scenes so let's not get it twisted that this is a burial on Gedo okay? it was a match that Tony Khan didn't agree about) was Taichi/ZSJ vs Ibushi/Tanahashi, "why humiliate your top two best wrestlers" Tony says when Ibushi/Tana being put in the 69 position by Taichi/ZSJ as they clang the titles
- When Covid-19 occurred the first month was really weird, felt like the first day of school with everyone coming back, implementing Covid protocols, filmed a live Dynamite on April 1st, next day taped the whole month of April (operated at about 29% of the AEW Roster), went through the whole month without everyone getting together which was hard, May 6th episode was when they got back together which helped build up Double or Nothing (Cultivation of FTW stable, Jungle Boy/MJF, Moxley/Lee)
*
submitted by zachdawizard to SquaredCircle [link] [comments]
Director Cut S-ex Mo-vie Nw
Did movies survived up to today despite the outcry that TV will kill cinema because its free thats been around since the 50s is because films have been far superior in quality to TV until about the last 15 years? That people were willing paid pricey 1-time tickets despite free entertainment on TV?
Inspired by a post I saw.
In fairness to actors who viewed TV as beneath them ... for a very long while they were totally right. Television has only actually gotten good in the last decade and a half. It's like OP's argument about video games: you can enjoy TV from earlier, but you can't claim that it genuinely competed with books or film. It was just kind of shit across the board.
Indeed despite how mainstream news media esp Newspapers have been crying out loud that television will kill the film medium, movies have survived all the way to today. Despite mainstream news since the 50s stating TV will steal away the movie industry's customer because its free, people still continued to pay pretty expensive prices just to see a movie for a one-time view.
So many theories arise the dominance of television did not completely kill movies and movies still continue to be profitable up until today and one of them is the quote above about how despite being free, TV shows were pretty crap through and through until recent time and the best TV shows could not hold a candle to good or even just subpar movies nevermind Academy Award winning stuff.
I actually am beginning to believe this is the case. I am watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the
MASTERPIECES of television of the 90s and I also did a Charmed rewatch back in August and am on a Beverly Hills 90210 rewatch as will as just started on Xena. I thought these shows were the best things ever growing up but uuugggh they are so hard to get through today esp since I'm also doing a viewthrough of Audrey Hepburn's completely filmography and other Golden Age Hollywood stars. The differences in quality in everything from acting to writing and music blows away Xena and Buffy. There is simply no comparison. Charmed and 90210 cannot touch even lesser known stuff like Gene Tierney's movies.
The only TV show I'm watching ATM that I can honestly say matches cinema standards is Alias and while its so damn good it legitimately beats your run of the mill Spy films and even the weaker James Bond movies, it cannot hold a cradle to From Russia With Love, GoldenEye, and esp Casino Royale and Skyfall.
So I completely believe the quoted text above and the theory that television was far below other mediums at the time except maybe comics that was why people continued to pay expensive tickets to see movies and while film continues to survive until today.
Your opinion? What arguments can you come up with whether this is true or false?
submitted by EvaWolves to movies [link] [comments]
Did movies survived up to today despite the outcry that TV will kill cinema because its free thats been around since the 50s is because films have been far superior in quality to TV until about the last 15 years? That people were willing paid pricey 1-time tickets despite free entertainment on TV?
Inspired by a post I saw.
In fairness to actors who viewed TV as beneath them ... for a very long while they were totally right. Television has only actually gotten good in the last decade and a half. It's like OP's argument about video games: you can enjoy TV from earlier, but you can't claim that it genuinely competed with books or film. It was just kind of shit across the board.
Indeed despite how mainstream news media esp Newspapers have been crying out loud that television will kill the film medium, movies have survived all the way to today. Despite mainstream news since the 50s stating TV will steal away the movie industry's customer because its free, people still continued to pay pretty expensive prices just to see a movie for a one-time view.
So many theories arise the dominance of television did not completely kill movies and movies still continue to be profitable up until today and one of them is the quote above about how despite being free, TV shows were pretty crap through and through until recent time and the best TV shows could not hold a candle to good or even just subpar movies nevermind Academy Award winning stuff.
I actually am beginning to believe this is the case. I am watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the
MASTERPIECES of television of the 90s and I also did a Charmed rewatch back in August and am on a Beverly Hills 90210 rewatch as will as just started on Xena. I thought these shows were the best things ever growing up but uuugggh they are so hard to get through today esp since I'm also doing a viewthrough of Audrey Hepburn's completely filmography and other Golden Age Hollywood stars. The differences in quality in everything from acting to writing and music blows away Xena and Buffy. There is simply no comparison. Charmed and 90210 cannot touch even lesser known stuff like Gene Tierney's movies.
The only TV show I'm watching ATM that I can honestly say matches cinema standards is Alias and while its so damn good it legitimately beats your run of the mill Spy films and even the weaker James Bond movies, it cannot hold a cradle to From Russia With Love, GoldenEye, and esp Casino Royale and Skyfall.
So I completely believe the quoted text above and the theory that television was far below other mediums at the time except maybe comics that was why people continued to pay expensive tickets to see movies and while film continues to survive until today.
Your opinion? What arguments can you come up with whether this is true or false?
submitted by EvaWolves to OnCinemaAtTheCinema [link] [comments]
Did movies survived up to today despite the outcry that TV will kill cinema because its free thats been around since the 50s is because films have been far superior in quality to TV until about the last 15 years? That people were willing paid pricey 1-time tickets despite free entertainment on TV?
Inspired by a post I saw.
In fairness to actors who viewed TV as beneath them ... for a very long while they were totally right. Television has only actually gotten good in the last decade and a half. It's like OP's argument about video games: you can enjoy TV from earlier, but you can't claim that it genuinely competed with books or film. It was just kind of shit across the board.
Indeed despite how mainstream news media esp Newspapers have been crying out loud that television will kill the film medium, movies have survived all the way to today. Despite mainstream news since the 50s stating TV will steal away the movie industry's customer because its free, people still continued to pay pretty expensive prices just to see a movie for a one-time view.
So many theories arise the dominance of television did not completely kill movies and movies still continue to be profitable up until today and one of them is the quote above about how despite being free, TV shows were pretty crap through and through until recent time and the best TV shows could not hold a candle to good or even just subpar movies nevermind Academy Award winning stuff.
I actually am beginning to believe this is the case. I am watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the
MASTERPIECES of television of the 90s and I also did a Charmed rewatch back in August and am on a Beverly Hills 90210 rewatch as will as just started on Xena. I thought these shows were the best things ever growing up but uuugggh they are so hard to get through today esp since I'm also doing a viewthrough of Audrey Hepburn's completely filmography and other Golden Age Hollywood stars. The differences in quality in everything from acting to writing and music blows away Xena and Buffy. There is simply no comparison. Charmed and 90210 cannot touch even lesser known stuff like Gene Tierney's movies.
The only TV show I'm watching ATM that I can honestly say matches cinema standards is Alias and while its so damn good it legitimately beats your run of the mill Spy films and even the weaker James Bond movies, it cannot hold a cradle to From Russia With Love, GoldenEye, and esp Casino Royale and Skyfall.
So I completely believe the quoted text above and the theory that television was far below other mediums at the time except maybe comics that was why people continued to pay expensive tickets to see movies and while film continues to survive until today.
Your opinion? What arguments can you come up with whether this is true or false?
submitted by EvaWolves to flicks [link] [comments]
Did movies survived up to today despite the outcry that TV will kill cinema because its free thats been around since the 50s is because films have been far superior in quality to TV until about the last 15 years? That people were willing paid pricey 1-time tickets despite free entertainment on TV?
Inspired by a post I saw.
In fairness to actors who viewed TV as beneath them ... for a very long while they were totally right. Television has only actually gotten good in the last decade and a half. It's like OP's argument about video games: you can enjoy TV from earlier, but you can't claim that it genuinely competed with books or film. It was just kind of shit across the board.
Indeed despite how mainstream news media esp Newspapers have been crying out loud that television will kill the film medium, movies have survived all the way to today. Despite mainstream news since the 50s stating TV will steal away the movie industry's customer because its free, people still continued to pay pretty expensive prices just to see a movie for a one-time view.
So many theories arise the dominance of television did not completely kill movies and movies still continue to be profitable up until today and one of them is the quote above about how despite being free, TV shows were pretty crap through and through until recent time and the best TV shows could not hold a candle to good or even just subpar movies nevermind Academy Award winning stuff.
I actually am beginning to believe this is the case. I am watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the
MASTERPIECES of television of the 90s and I also did a Charmed rewatch back in August and am on a Beverly Hills 90210 rewatch as will as just started on Xena. I thought these shows were the best things ever growing up but uuugggh they are so hard to get through today esp since I'm also doing a viewthrough of Audrey Hepburn's completely filmography and other Golden Age Hollywood stars. The differences in quality in everything from acting to writing and music blows away Xena and Buffy. There is simply no comparison. Charmed and 90210 cannot touch even lesser known stuff like Gene Tierney's movies.
The only TV show I'm watching ATM that I can honestly say matches cinema standards is Alias and while its so damn good it legitimately beats your run of the mill Spy films and even the weaker James Bond movies, it cannot hold a cradle to From Russia With Love, GoldenEye, and esp Casino Royale and Skyfall.
So I completely believe the quoted text above and the theory that television was far below other mediums at the time except maybe comics that was why people continued to pay expensive tickets to see movies and while film continues to survive until today.
Your opinion? What arguments can you come up with whether this is true or false?
submitted by EvaWolves to filmtheory [link] [comments]
Did movies survived up to today despite the outcry that TV will kill cinema because its free thats been around since the 50s is because films have been far superior in quality to TV until about the last 15 years? That people were willing paid pricey 1-time tickets despite free entertainment on TV?
Inspired by a post I saw.
In fairness to actors who viewed TV as beneath them ... for a very long while they were totally right. Television has only actually gotten good in the last decade and a half. It's like OP's argument about video games: you can enjoy TV from earlier, but you can't claim that it genuinely competed with books or film. It was just kind of shit across the board.
Indeed despite how mainstream news media esp Newspapers have been crying out loud that television will kill the film medium, movies have survived all the way to today. Despite mainstream news since the 50s stating TV will steal away the movie industry's customer because its free, people still continued to pay pretty expensive prices just to see a movie for a one-time view.
So many theories arise the dominance of television did not completely kill movies and movies still continue to be profitable up until today and one of them is the quote above about how despite being free, TV shows were pretty crap through and through until recent time and the best TV shows could not hold a candle to good or even just subpar movies nevermind Academy Award winning stuff.
I actually am beginning to believe this is the case. I am watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the
MASTERPIECES of television of the 90s and I also did a Charmed rewatch back in August and am on a Beverly Hills 90210 rewatch as will as just started on Xena. I thought these shows were the best things ever growing up but uuugggh they are so hard to get through today esp since I'm also doing a viewthrough of Audrey Hepburn's completely filmography and other Golden Age Hollywood stars. The differences in quality in everything from acting to writing and music blows away Xena and Buffy. There is simply no comparison. Charmed and 90210 cannot touch even lesser known stuff like Gene Tierney's movies.
The only TV show I'm watching ATM that I can honestly say matches cinema standards is Alias and while its so damn good it legitimately beats your run of the mill Spy films and even the weaker James Bond movies, it cannot hold a cradle to From Russia With Love, GoldenEye, and esp Casino Royale and Skyfall.
So I completely believe the quoted text above and the theory that television was far below other mediums at the time except maybe comics that was why people continued to pay expensive tickets to see movies and while film continues to survive until today.
Your opinion? What arguments can you come up with whether this is true or false?
submitted by EvaWolves to TrueFilm [link] [comments]
Did movies survived up to today despite the outcry that TV will kill cinema because its free thats been around since the 50s is because films have been far superior in quality to TV until about the last 15 years? That people were willing paid pricey 1-time tickets despite free entertainment on TV?
Inspired by a post I saw.
In fairness to actors who viewed TV as beneath them ... for a very long while they were totally right. Television has only actually gotten good in the last decade and a half. It's like OP's argument about video games: you can enjoy TV from earlier, but you can't claim that it genuinely competed with books or film. It was just kind of shit across the board.
Indeed despite how mainstream news media esp Newspapers have been crying out loud that television will kill the film medium, movies have survived all the way to today. Despite mainstream news since the 50s stating TV will steal away the movie industry's customer because its free, people still continued to pay pretty expensive prices just to see a movie for a one-time view.
So many theories arise the dominance of television did not completely kill movies and movies still continue to be profitable up until today and one of them is the quote above about how despite being free, TV shows were pretty crap through and through until recent time and the best TV shows could not hold a candle to good or even just subpar movies nevermind Academy Award winning stuff.
I actually am beginning to believe this is the case. I am watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the
MASTERPIECES of television of the 90s and I also did a Charmed rewatch back in August and am on a Beverly Hills 90210 rewatch as will as just started on Xena. I thought these shows were the best things ever growing up but uuugggh they are so hard to get through today esp since I'm also doing a viewthrough of Audrey Hepburn's completely filmography and other Golden Age Hollywood stars. The differences in quality in everything from acting to writing and music blows away Xena and Buffy. There is simply no comparison. Charmed and 90210 cannot touch even lesser known stuff like Gene Tierney's movies.
The only TV show I'm watching ATM that I can honestly say matches cinema standards is Alias and while its so damn good it legitimately beats your run of the mill Spy films and even the weaker James Bond movies, it cannot hold a cradle to From Russia With Love, GoldenEye, and esp Casino Royale and Skyfall.
So I completely believe the quoted text above and the theory that television was far below other mediums at the time except maybe comics that was why people continued to pay expensive tickets to see movies and while film continues to survive until today.
Your opinion? What arguments can you come up with whether this is true or false?
submitted by EvaWolves to directors [link] [comments]
Did movies survived up to today despite the outcry that TV will kill cinema because its free thats been around since the 50s is because films have been far superior in quality to TV until about the last 15 years? That people were willing paid pricey 1-time tickets despite free entertainment on TV?
Inspired by a post I saw.
In fairness to actors who viewed TV as beneath them ... for a very long while they were totally right. Television has only actually gotten good in the last decade and a half. It's like OP's argument about video games: you can enjoy TV from earlier, but you can't claim that it genuinely competed with books or film. It was just kind of shit across the board.
Indeed despite how mainstream news media esp Newspapers have been crying out loud that television will kill the film medium, movies have survived all the way to today. Despite mainstream news since the 50s stating TV will steal away the movie industry's customer because its free, people still continued to pay pretty expensive prices just to see a movie for a one-time view.
So many theories arise the dominance of television did not completely kill movies and movies still continue to be profitable up until today and one of them is the quote above about how despite being free, TV shows were pretty crap through and through until recent time and the best TV shows could not hold a candle to good or even just subpar movies nevermind Academy Award winning stuff.
I actually am beginning to believe this is the case. I am watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the
MASTERPIECES of television of the 90s and I also did a Charmed rewatch back in August and am on a Beverly Hills 90210 rewatch as will as just started on Xena. I thought these shows were the best things ever growing up but uuugggh they are so hard to get through today esp since I'm also doing a viewthrough of Audrey Hepburn's completely filmography and other Golden Age Hollywood stars. The differences in quality in everything from acting to writing and music blows away Xena and Buffy. There is simply no comparison. Charmed and 90210 cannot touch even lesser known stuff like Gene Tierney's movies.
The only TV show I'm watching ATM that I can honestly say matches cinema standards is Alias and while its so damn good it legitimately beats your run of the mill Spy films and even the weaker James Bond movies, it cannot hold a cradle to From Russia With Love, GoldenEye, and esp Casino Royale and Skyfall.
So I completely believe the quoted text above and the theory that television was far below other mediums at the time except maybe comics that was why people continued to pay expensive tickets to see movies and while film continues to survive until today.
Your opinion? What arguments can you come up with whether this is true or false?
submitted by EvaWolves to Filmmakers [link] [comments]
Did movies survived up to today despite the outcry that TV will kill cinema because its free thats been around since the 50s is because films have been far superior in quality to TV until about the last 15 years? That people were willing paid pricey 1-time tickets despite free entertainment on TV?
Inspired by a post I saw.
In fairness to actors who viewed TV as beneath them ... for a very long while they were totally right. Television has only actually gotten good in the last decade and a half. It's like OP's argument about video games: you can enjoy TV from earlier, but you can't claim that it genuinely competed with books or film. It was just kind of shit across the board.
Indeed despite how mainstream news media esp Newspapers have been crying out loud that television will kill the film medium, movies have survived all the way to today. Despite mainstream news since the 50s stating TV will steal away the movie industry's customer because its free, people still continued to pay pretty expensive prices just to see a movie for a one-time view.
So many theories arise the dominance of television did not completely kill movies and movies still continue to be profitable up until today and one of them is the quote above about how despite being free, TV shows were pretty crap through and through until recent time and the best TV shows could not hold a candle to good or even just subpar movies nevermind Academy Award winning stuff.
I actually am beginning to believe this is the case. I am watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the
MASTERPIECES of television of the 90s and I also did a Charmed rewatch back in August and am on a Beverly Hills 90210 rewatch as will as just started on Xena. I thought these shows were the best things ever growing up but uuugggh they are so hard to get through today esp since I'm also doing a viewthrough of Audrey Hepburn's completely filmography and other Golden Age Hollywood stars. The differences in quality in everything from acting to writing and music blows away Xena and Buffy. There is simply no comparison. Charmed and 90210 cannot touch even lesser known stuff like Gene Tierney's movies.
The only TV show I'm watching ATM that I can honestly say matches cinema standards is Alias and while its so damn good it legitimately beats your run of the mill Spy films and even the weaker James Bond movies, it cannot hold a cradle to From Russia With Love, GoldenEye, and esp Casino Royale and Skyfall.
So I completely believe the quoted text above and the theory that television was far below other mediums at the time except maybe comics that was why people continued to pay expensive tickets to see movies and while film continues to survive until today.
Your opinion? What arguments can you come up with whether this is true or false?
submitted by EvaWolves to FilmTVBudgeting [link] [comments]
Did movies survived up to today despite the outcry that TV will kill cinema because its free thats been around since the 50s is because films have been far superior in quality to TV until about the last 15 years? That people were willing paid pricey 1-time tickets despite free entertainment on TV?
Inspired by a post I saw.
In fairness to actors who viewed TV as beneath them ... for a very long while they were totally right. Television has only actually gotten good in the last decade and a half. It's like OP's argument about video games: you can enjoy TV from earlier, but you can't claim that it genuinely competed with books or film. It was just kind of shit across the board.
Indeed despite how mainstream news media esp Newspapers have been crying out loud that television will kill the film medium, movies have survived all the way to today. Despite mainstream news since the 50s stating TV will steal away the movie industry's customer because its free, people still continued to pay pretty expensive prices just to see a movie for a one-time view.
So many theories arise the dominance of television did not completely kill movies and movies still continue to be profitable up until today and one of them is the quote above about how despite being free, TV shows were pretty crap through and through until recent time and the best TV shows could not hold a candle to good or even just subpar movies nevermind Academy Award winning stuff.
I actually am beginning to believe this is the case. I am watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the
MASTERPIECES of television of the 90s and I also did a Charmed rewatch back in August and am on a Beverly Hills 90210 rewatch as will as just started on Xena. I thought these shows were the best things ever growing up but uuugggh they are so hard to get through today esp since I'm also doing a viewthrough of Audrey Hepburn's completely filmography and other Golden Age Hollywood stars. The differences in quality in everything from acting to writing and music blows away Xena and Buffy. There is simply no comparison. Charmed and 90210 cannot touch even lesser known stuff like Gene Tierney's movies.
The only TV show I'm watching ATM that I can honestly say matches cinema standards is Alias and while its so damn good it legitimately beats your run of the mill Spy films and even the weaker James Bond movies, it cannot hold a cradle to From Russia With Love, GoldenEye, and esp Casino Royale and Skyfall.
So I completely believe the quoted text above and the theory that television was far below other mediums at the time except maybe comics that was why people continued to pay expensive tickets to see movies and while film continues to survive until today.
Your opinion? What arguments can you come up with whether this is true or false?
submitted by EvaWolves to TrueTelevision [link] [comments]
Did movies survived up to today despite the outcry that TV will kill cinema because its free thats been around since the 50s is because films have been far superior in quality to TV until about the last 15 years? That people were willing paid pricey 1-time tickets despite free entertainment on TV?
Inspired by a post I saw.
In fairness to actors who viewed TV as beneath them ... for a very long while they were totally right. Television has only actually gotten good in the last decade and a half. It's like OP's argument about video games: you can enjoy TV from earlier, but you can't claim that it genuinely competed with books or film. It was just kind of shit across the board.
Indeed despite how mainstream news media esp Newspapers have been crying out loud that television will kill the film medium, movies have survived all the way to today. Despite mainstream news since the 50s stating TV will steal away the movie industry's customer because its free, people still continued to pay pretty expensive prices just to see a movie for a one-time view.
So many theories arise the dominance of television did not completely kill movies and movies still continue to be profitable up until today and one of them is the quote above about how despite being free, TV shows were pretty crap through and through until recent time and the best TV shows could not hold a candle to good or even just subpar movies nevermind Academy Award winning stuff.
I actually am beginning to believe this is the case. I am watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the **MASTERPIECES** of television of the 90s and I also did a Charmed rewatch back in August and am on a Beverly Hills 90210 rewatch as will as just started on Xena. I thought these shows were the best things ever growing up but uuugggh they are so hard to get through today esp since I'm also doing a viewthrough of Audrey Hepburn's completely filmography and other Golden Age Hollywood stars. The differences in quality in everything from acting to writing and music blows away Xena and Buffy. There is simply no comparison. Charmed and 90210 cannot touch even lesser known stuff like Gene Tierney's movies.
The only TV show I'm watching ATM that I can honestly say matches cinema standards is Alias and while its so damn good it legitimately beats your run of the mill Spy films and even the weaker James Bond movies, it cannot hold a cradle to From Russia With Love, GoldenEye, and esp Casino Royale and Skyfall.
So I completely believe the quoted text above and the theory that television was far below other mediums at the time except maybe comics that was why people continued to pay expensive tickets to see movies and while film continues to survive until today.
Your opinion? Yay, Nay, or other? Or is it even more complicated than a simple one word answer beyond a TLDR explanation thats worth an Essay?
View Poll submitted by EvaWolves to poll [link] [comments]
My Very Long Take on AEW. Please Share Your Thoughts
Ok, so i am sure this gets posted all the time, probably multiple times a week, but I would love to discuss this with some others.
Ok, so I am sure this gets posted often, probably weekly, but I really wanted to share my opinions on AEW, and hear some opinions. Maybe people can change my mind. Let me start off by saying, I am in my mid 20s, I really enjoy Chris Jericho, Dustin, and Kenny Omega, I grew up on the Attitude Era and my favorite style of wrestling is the AJPW King’s Road Style. I cannot STAND AEW. The thing that bothers me the most is that I really really want to like it. I have given it a chance multiple times and just do not like the product one bit. Pardon my inner Cornette, but he goofy promos and skits, the silly characters, ridiculous indy spot after spot after spot, overly choreographed sequences, “not finished” belts, constant attacks towards WWE/NXT while saying they aren’t worried about them or care about them, the severe lack of heavyweights, having tough, trained professionals selling for someone that looks like a 12 year old boy, and an absolutely God awful women’s division makes this a very hard show to watch. I don’t see the appeal.
If they would have advertised this as a goofy independent show with a billionaire’s backing, I wouldn’t be so upset. But they didn’t. They promised so much and have failed to deliver. They started off great in my opinion. The first PPVs were awesome. They felt real, exciting, new, and different. Cody vs Dustin was AMAZING, Jericho becoming the first champion was perfect, Omega’s future looked bright and looked to be a top player, and the Young Bucks, well, I could never stand them anyway, so they did nothing for me from day one.
Back to the promises, we were lead to believe that the women’s division would be a highlight of the show. As a fan of the incredible women’s division that NXT has had for years, and the amazing Stardom promotion, I was excited for this. Khan promised that the Women’s division would be handled like the old WVW cruiserweight scene, specifically with regards to the incoming Joshi wrestlers and how they would interact with other performers on the roster. We assumed it would be an awesome, action packed division, with awesome stars that would deliver great in ring action every week. But we haven’t even gotten a fraction of that. We have gotten a very spotty, very hard to watch, botch/mish-mosh of “wrestling”. They pushed Nyla too fast in my opinion. I love the fact that they have a transgender on the roster, I just feel they needed to continue to build her as a dominant monster heel, then once she gets the strap, do not take it off her for years. That would be much more believable. The division does have some decent talent, Shida, Baker, Statlander, and some that look promising, but they need a reboot, better booking, and more time/action in the ring. They just haven’t really gelled at all. Hopefully this tag tournament thing will help. Hopefully it will bring in fresh talent that will elevate these women and not turn this into a botch-fest sh*t show.
Another big issue with a failed promise is that Tony stated there would be no silly storylines. On Wade Keller’s podcast, Khan stated that the company’s storylines wouldn’t be lacking in drama, but they would stem from what happens in the ring, personal issues, and grudges. There would be lest focus on what he called “preposterous, ridiculous” angles. This was music to my ears. I was so excited for something different. An alternative to WWE. Action minus the silliness. Then they just end up doing the goofiest sh*t I have seen in years. The Bubbly Bunch? Dark Order shenanigans? A girl playing an alien on national TV? A dinosaur man and a tiny boy that looks 12? A guy who wrestles with his hands in his pockets and would get annihilated if he did that in a real match? Football stadium matches? Trust me I could go on for hours.
The Inner Circle could’ve been a current version of the NWO. Jericho (like Hogan) a major player that jumped ship and expects to be treated like a God, young future talent (Sammy) a tag team (Santana and Ortiz) and the muscle (Hager). But they have turned into a complete joke. Guevara terribly singing Jericho’s entrance theme, Jericho overacting like a goof to everything, yelling at Tyson, getting involved with Matt Hardy’s goofy “broken” gimmick. Jericho, a top talent who just a year ago was serious and speaking in a monotone while holding the company’s title making it seem prestigious, is now acting as a drone and orange juice are his number one rivals. Selling a teleporting Matt Hardy and a guy who wrestles with his hands in his pockets (also a guy who Jericho would murder if they were to fight like that). There is also way to many factions I can’t even keep them straight. Who is with who? Who are buddies? Everyone is a part of a team or faction, and who the hell are heels and baby faces?!
This brings me to my next point. They promised to be different. We wanted an alternative to WWE and some of their silly storylines. But what we have gotten is the worst of WWE amplified by lesser talent and inferior production. AEW has been slipping into some of old wrestling’s bad habits since day one. Silly comedy, which most isn’t funny at all, to unexplained changes in storylines, AEW is just as flawed as WWE is. But fan will continue to bash WWE for something and turn right around to praise AEW for the same thing (most of the times something that is even worse!). Allie was managing Butcher and the Blade as Bunny, one week she came to ringside during a match with QT Marshall and now she has nothing to do with Butcher and Blade, and she is no longer the Bunny and is in love with QT. They never told us why. They pushed so hard that they would be an alternative to WWE but have taken the worst elements of WWE and injected it directly into their show. Not to mention a good amount of their main event players are WWE rejects, or older WWE stars.
As I mentioned in my intro, I am a HUGE fan of 90s AJPW/early Pro Wrestling NOAH and the King’s Road Style of wrestling. Giant Baba was an absolute genius booker. Jumbo Tsuruta/Tenryu laid the ground work for the Four Pillars and what I consider the greatest wrestling ever. If you watch these matches, you get so sucked in. You believe everything that is happening. There is no wasted movement, everything makes sense and has purpose. You believe 100% that these guys are trying to win and giving it their all. It is so easy to forget that it is pre-determined. There is incredible selling, passion, hard hitting offense, prestige, high risks, high rewards, it is all so believable and so sport like. And this is my NUMBER ONE gripe with AEW. They promised us a sports-based program. They promised a “real sport feel”. They do have the win/loss records which is cool and sport like, (I still don’t get how someone could be undefeated and not the number one contender) but on the other hand you have acts like the Dark Order, Orange Cassidy, Marko Stunt, Bubbly Bunch, and stadium matches, just some of the silliest stuff I have seen. None of the in-ring action appears real. The high spots are hard to watch, (Young Buck 1 holding on to Young Buck 2’s leg while their opponents attack his partner, SERIOUSLY?!) They treat tag team rules as a joke (to the point JR has called them out). The few big men they have (aside from Cage) like Hager and Wardlow, would wreck the rest of the roster in real combat sports, seem like backseat players who don’t add much at all. This is a fun quote from Mr. Khan that hasn’t aged well AT ALL; “We are going to provide a serious, sport-based product with the best wrestling. Something you’re going to notice more and more in our shows is they’re going to take place in and around the ring. Like, we’re not going to go out of the arena, we’re not going to spend half the show backstage in dressing rooms, or backstage choreographed segments.” I feel like every time I turn AEW on, it is a goofy backstage segment or match. Watching things like the Casino Battle Royale or the Stadium Match I think to myself “so this is supposed to be the serious, sports-based company?” I think that the disconnect comes from Khan not really knowing the wrestling business or how to book a promotion. He is a SUPER MARK with deep pockets. He gave the power to the wrestlers, he gave them creative control. You could have a great vision for a story and for character development, but if you give too many characters be more open with how they want to present themselves, it’s going to cause issues. A real sport would not have athletes that are too lazy to compete, it wouldn’t have a teleporting “Broken” Matt Hardy, it wouldn’t have Chris Jericho having a pep rally for himself as the main event for a ton of its shows. When it comes to sports-based NXT is actually doing a far better job than AEW, while NJPW is the king at the moment.
To sum up, I just don’t get it. I want to, but I can’t. It is an odd thing to me. Fans complain about WWE being too silly and doing stupid things, then turn around and cheer the silly, cartoonish, comic-bookish stuff that AEW does as if it’s the greatest thing going. Khan at one point stated that he loves the more realistic stuff but knows that others, prefer silliness like Hardy and Cassidy’s characters. I probably would have preferred the show if Khan had more control, which he probably did those first few shows and why I enjoyed them way more than today’s product that is run by Cody, Bucks, Omega and their buddies. I read an article where AEW’s eyes must have been bigger than their stomach on this one, and wanted many. I know many people hate Cornette and his views, but i agree with 95% of things he says about AEW.
At this point, I will just continue to watch NXT weekly and not give AEW much thought. I will try to follow it, but wont go out of my way to watch it. It is just not what I wanted, not what I was promised, and not the product I like. Also, I want to use this to encourage more people to watch classic AJPW. Misawa, Kobashi, Kawada, Taue, Akiyama, Hansen, Tsuruta, Steve Williams, Terry Gordy, those guys knew how to put on a sports-based wrestling program and their matches still hold up today. Seriously the greatest in-ring action of all time! Thank you for taking the time to read this rant/essay and I would love to hear your thoughts.
submitted by OhBurningHammer93 to SquaredCircle [link] [comments]
Did movies survived up to today despite the outcry that TV will kill cinema because its free thats been around since the 50s is because films have been far superior in quality to TV until about the last 15 years? That people were willing paid pricey 1-time tickets despite free entertainment on TV?
Inspired by a post I saw.
In fairness to actors who viewed TV as beneath them ... for a very long while they were totally right. Television has only actually gotten good in the last decade and a half. It's like OP's argument about video games: you can enjoy TV from earlier, but you can't claim that it genuinely competed with books or film. It was just kind of shit across the board.
Indeed despite how mainstream news media esp Newspapers have been crying out loud that television will kill the film medium, movies have survived all the way to today. Despite mainstream news since the 50s stating TV will steal away the movie industry's customer because its free, people still continued to pay pretty expensive prices just to see a movie for a one-time view.
So many theories arise the dominance of television did not completely kill movies and movies still continue to be profitable up until today and one of them is the quote above about how despite being free, TV shows were pretty crap through and through until recent time and the best TV shows could not hold a candle to good or even just subpar movies nevermind Academy Award winning stuff.
I actually am beginning to believe this is the case. I am watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the
MASTERPIECES of television of the 90s and I also did a Charmed rewatch back in August and am on a Beverly Hills 90210 rewatch as will as just started on Xena. I thought these shows were the best things ever growing up but uuugggh they are so hard to get through today esp since I'm also doing a viewthrough of Audrey Hepburn's completely filmography and other Golden Age Hollywood stars. The differences in quality in everything from acting to writing and music blows away Xena and Buffy. There is simply no comparison. Charmed and 90210 cannot touch even lesser known stuff like Gene Tierney's movies.
The only TV show I'm watching ATM that I can honestly say matches cinema standards is Alias and while its so damn good it legitimately beats your run of the mill Spy films and even the weaker James Bond movies, it cannot hold a cradle to From Russia With Love, GoldenEye, and esp Casino Royale and Skyfall.
So I completely believe the quoted text above and the theory that television was far below other mediums at the time except maybe comics that was why people continued to pay expensive tickets to see movies and while film continues to survive until today.
Your opinion? What arguments can you come up with whether this is true or false?
submitted by EvaWolves to moviehistory [link] [comments]
Did movies survived up to today despite the outcry that TV will kill cinema because its free thats been around since the 50s is because films have been far superior in quality to TV until about the last 15 years? That people were willing paid pricey 1-time tickets despite free entertainment on TV?
Inspired by a post I saw.
In fairness to actors who viewed TV as beneath them ... for a very long while they were totally right. Television has only actually gotten good in the last decade and a half. It's like OP's argument about video games: you can enjoy TV from earlier, but you can't claim that it genuinely competed with books or film. It was just kind of shit across the board.
Indeed despite how mainstream news media esp Newspapers have been crying out loud that television will kill the film medium, movies have survived all the way to today. Despite mainstream news since the 50s stating TV will steal away the movie industry's customer because its free, people still continued to pay pretty expensive prices just to see a movie for a one-time view.
So many theories arise the dominance of television did not completely kill movies and movies still continue to be profitable up until today and one of them is the quote above about how despite being free, TV shows were pretty crap through and through until recent time and the best TV shows could not hold a candle to good or even just subpar movies nevermind Academy Award winning stuff.
I actually am beginning to believe this is the case. I am watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the
MASTERPIECES of television of the 90s and I also did a Charmed rewatch back in August and am on a Beverly Hills 90210 rewatch as will as just started on Xena. I thought these shows were the best things ever growing up but uuugggh they are so hard to get through today esp since I'm also doing a viewthrough of Audrey Hepburn's completely filmography and other Golden Age Hollywood stars. The differences in quality in everything from acting to writing and music blows away Xena and Buffy. There is simply no comparison. Charmed and 90210 cannot touch even lesser known stuff like Gene Tierney's movies.
The only TV show I'm watching ATM that I can honestly say matches cinema standards is Alias and while its so damn good it legitimately beats your run of the mill Spy films and even the weaker James Bond movies, it cannot hold a cradle to From Russia With Love, GoldenEye, and esp Casino Royale and Skyfall.
So I completely believe the quoted text above and the theory that television was far below other mediums at the time except maybe comics that was why people continued to pay expensive tickets to see movies and while film continues to survive until today.
Your opinion? What arguments can you come up with whether this is true or false?
submitted by EvaWolves to filmmaker [link] [comments]
Did movies survived up to today despite the outcry that TV will kill cinema because its free thats been around since the 50s is because films have been far superior in quality to TV until about the last 15 years? That people were willing paid pricey 1-time tickets despite free entertainment on TV?
Inspired by a post I saw.
In fairness to actors who viewed TV as beneath them ... for a very long while they were totally right. Television has only actually gotten good in the last decade and a half. It's like OP's argument about video games: you can enjoy TV from earlier, but you can't claim that it genuinely competed with books or film. It was just kind of shit across the board.
Indeed despite how mainstream news media esp Newspapers have been crying out loud that television will kill the film medium, movies have survived all the way to today. Despite mainstream news since the 50s stating TV will steal away the movie industry's customer because its free, people still continued to pay pretty expensive prices just to see a movie for a one-time view.
So many theories arise the dominance of television did not completely kill movies and movies still continue to be profitable up until today and one of them is the quote above about how despite being free, TV shows were pretty crap through and through until recent time and the best TV shows could not hold a candle to good or even just subpar movies nevermind Academy Award winning stuff.
I actually am beginning to believe this is the case. I am watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the **MASTERPIECES** of television of the 90s and I also did a Charmed rewatch back in August and am on a Beverly Hills 90210 rewatch as will as just started on Xena. I thought these shows were the best things ever growing up but uuugggh they are so hard to get through today esp since I'm also doing a viewthrough of Audrey Hepburn's completely filmography and other Golden Age Hollywood stars. The differences in quality in everything from acting to writing and music blows away Xena and Buffy. There is simply no comparison. Charmed and 90210 cannot touch even lesser known stuff like Gene Tierney's movies.
The only TV show I'm watching ATM that I can honestly say matches cinema standards is Alias and while its so damn good it legitimately beats your run of the mill Spy films and even the weaker James Bond movies, it cannot hold a cradle to From Russia With Love, GoldenEye, and esp Casino Royale and Skyfall.
So I completely believe the quoted text above and the theory that television was far below other mediums at the time except maybe comics that was why people continued to pay expensive tickets to see movies and while film continues to survive until today.
Your opinion? What arguments can you come up with whether this is true or false?
submitted by EvaWolves to tvshowclub [link] [comments]
Did movies survived up to today despite the outcry that TV will kill cinema because its free thats been around since the 50s is because films have been far superior in quality to TV until about the last 15 years? That people were willing paid pricey 1-time tickets despite free entertainment on TV?
Inspired by a post I saw.
In fairness to actors who viewed TV as beneath them ... for a very long while they were totally right. Television has only actually gotten good in the last decade and a half. It's like OP's argument about video games: you can enjoy TV from earlier, but you can't claim that it genuinely competed with books or film. It was just kind of shit across the board.
Indeed despite how mainstream news media esp Newspapers have been crying out loud that television will kill the film medium, movies have survived all the way to today. Despite mainstream news since the 50s stating TV will steal away the movie industry's customer because its free, people still continued to pay pretty expensive prices just to see a movie for a one-time view.
So many theories arise the dominance of television did not completely kill movies and movies still continue to be profitable up until today and one of them is the quote above about how despite being free, TV shows were pretty crap through and through until recent time and the best TV shows could not hold a candle to good or even just subpar movies nevermind Academy Award winning stuff.
I actually am beginning to believe this is the case. I am watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the **MASTERPIECES** of television of the 90s and I also did a Charmed rewatch back in August and am on a Beverly Hills 90210 rewatch as will as just started on Xena. I thought these shows were the best things ever growing up but uuugggh they are so hard to get through today esp since I'm also doing a viewthrough of Audrey Hepburn's completely filmography and other Golden Age Hollywood stars. The differences in quality in everything from acting to writing and music blows away Xena and Buffy. There is simply no comparison. Charmed and 90210 cannot touch even lesser known stuff like Gene Tierney's movies.
The only TV show I'm watching ATM that I can honestly say matches cinema standards is Alias and while its so damn good it legitimately beats your run of the mill Spy films and even the weaker James Bond movies, it cannot hold a cradle to From Russia With Love, GoldenEye, and esp Casino Royale and Skyfall.
So I completely believe the quoted text above and the theory that television was far below other mediums at the time except maybe comics that was why people continued to pay expensive tickets to see movies and while film continues to survive until today.
Your opinion? Yay, Nay, or other? Or is it even more complicated than a simple one word answer beyond a TLDR explanation thats worth an Essay?
View Poll submitted by EvaWolves to polls [link] [comments]
Did movies survived up to today despite the outcry that TV will kill cinema because its free thats been around since the 50s is because films have been far superior in quality to TV until about the last 15 years? That people were willing paid pricey 1-time tickets despite free entertainment on TV?
Inspired by a post I saw.
In fairness to actors who viewed TV as beneath them ... for a very long while they were totally right. Television has only actually gotten good in the last decade and a half. It's like OP's argument about video games: you can enjoy TV from earlier, but you can't claim that it genuinely competed with books or film. It was just kind of shit across the board.
Indeed despite how mainstream news media esp Newspapers have been crying out loud that television will kill the film medium, movies have survived all the way to today. Despite mainstream news since the 50s stating TV will steal away the movie industry's customer because its free, people still continued to pay pretty expensive prices just to see a movie for a one-time view.
So many theories arise the dominance of television did not completely kill movies and movies still continue to be profitable up until today and one of them is the quote above about how despite being free, TV shows were pretty crap through and through until recent time and the best TV shows could not hold a candle to good or even just subpar movies nevermind Academy Award winning stuff.
I actually am beginning to believe this is the case. I am watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the
MASTERPIECES of television of the 90s and I also did a Charmed rewatch back in August and am on a Beverly Hills 90210 rewatch as will as just started on Xena. I thought these shows were the best things ever growing up but uuugggh they are so hard to get through today esp since I'm also doing a viewthrough of Audrey Hepburn's completely filmography and other Golden Age Hollywood stars. The differences in quality in everything from acting to writing and music blows away Xena and Buffy. There is simply no comparison. Charmed and 90210 cannot touch even lesser known stuff like Gene Tierney's movies.
The only TV show I'm watching ATM that I can honestly say matches cinema standards is Alias and while its so damn good it legitimately beats your run of the mill Spy films and even the weaker James Bond movies, it cannot hold a cradle to From Russia With Love, GoldenEye, and esp Casino Royale and Skyfall.
So I completely believe the quoted text above and the theory that television was far below other mediums at the time except maybe comics that was why people continued to pay expensive tickets to see movies and while film continues to survive until today.
Your opinion? What arguments can you come up with whether this is true or false?
submitted by EvaWolves to Moviecriticism [link] [comments]
Did movies survived up to today despite the outcry that TV will kill cinema because its free thats been around since the 50s is because films have been far superior in quality to TV until about the last 15 years? That people were willing paid pricey 1-time tickets despite free entertainment on TV?
Inspired by a post I saw.
In fairness to actors who viewed TV as beneath them ... for a very long while they were totally right. Television has only actually gotten good in the last decade and a half. It's like OP's argument about video games: you can enjoy TV from earlier, but you can't claim that it genuinely competed with books or film. It was just kind of shit across the board.
Indeed despite how mainstream news media esp Newspapers have been crying out loud that television will kill the film medium, movies have survived all the way to today. Despite mainstream news since the 50s stating TV will steal away the movie industry's customer because its free, people still continued to pay pretty expensive prices just to see a movie for a one-time view.
So many theories arise the dominance of television did not completely kill movies and movies still continue to be profitable up until today and one of them is the quote above about how despite being free, TV shows were pretty crap through and through until recent time and the best TV shows could not hold a candle to good or even just subpar movies nevermind Academy Award winning stuff.
I actually am beginning to believe this is the case. I am watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer, one of the
MASTERPIECES of television of the 90s and I also did a Charmed rewatch back in August and am on a Beverly Hills 90210 rewatch as will as just started on Xena. I thought these shows were the best things ever growing up but uuugggh they are so hard to get through today esp since I'm also doing a viewthrough of Audrey Hepburn's completely filmography and other Golden Age Hollywood stars. The differences in quality in everything from acting to writing and music blows away Xena and Buffy. There is simply no comparison. Charmed and 90210 cannot touch even lesser known stuff like Gene Tierney's movies.
The only TV show I'm watching ATM that I can honestly say matches cinema standards is Alias and while its so damn good it legitimately beats your run of the mill Spy films and even the weaker James Bond movies, it cannot hold a cradle to From Russia With Love, GoldenEye, and esp Casino Royale and Skyfall.
So I completely believe the quoted text above and the theory that television was far below other mediums at the time except maybe comics that was why people continued to pay expensive tickets to see movies and while film continues to survive until today.
Your opinion? What arguments can you come up with whether this is true or false?
submitted by EvaWolves to AskMovies [link] [comments]
casino royale book quotes video
He has no book from which we can learn the nature of evil in all its forms, with parables about evil people, proverbs about evil people, folklore about evil people. All we have is the living example of people who are least good, or our own intuition.” ― Ian Fleming, Casino Royale Quotes from Ian Fleming's Casino Royale. Learn the important quotes in Casino Royale and the chapters they're from, including why they're important and what they mean in the context of the book. Writing about 2,000 words in three hours every morning, 'Casino Royale' dutifully produced itself. I wrote nothing and made no corrections until the book was finished. If I had looked back at what I had written the day before I might have despaired. Ian Fleming Casino Royale "The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning. Then the soul-erosion produced by high gambling – a compost of greed and fear and nervous tension – becomes unbearable and the senses awake and revolt from it." Diamonds Are Forever Discover and share Casino Royale Book Quotes. Explore our collection of motivational and famous quotes by authors you know and love. Casino Royale John Huston was only one of five directors on this expensive, all-star 1967 spoof of Ian Fleming's 007 lore. David Niven is the aging Sir James Bond, called out of retirement to take on the organized threat of SMERSH and pass on the secret-agent mantle to his idiot son (Woody Allen). This Study Guide consists of approximately 37 pages of chapter summaries, quotes, character analysis, themes, and more - everything you need to sharpen your knowledge of Casino Royale. Bond "has never yet been made to suffer from cards or by women. One day, and he accepted the fact, he would be ... 142 quotes from Casino Royale (James Bond, #1): ‘People are islands,' she said. 'They don't really touch. However close they are, they're really quite se... Discover and share the most famous quotes from the book Casino Royale (James Bond #1). A collection of some of the best quotes from the 21st film in the James Bond series, Casino Royale. Includes quotes by James Bond, Vesper Lynd, Le Chiffre, Solange, Steven Obanno, Carter, Felix Leiter, Infante, Dryden, and Tomelli.
casino royale book quotes top
[index]
[738] [6332] [5256] [2689] [7833] [1759] [2620] [5335] [3412] [1921]
casino royale book quotes
Copyright © 2024 m.123artnews.site