The best Bond and LOTR version | |
(13:58 15/6/2002) ToiletDuck (13:58 15/6/2002) moss (13:58 15/6/2002) andrew (13:58 15/6/2002) moss (13:58 15/6/2002) andrew (12:46 3/5/2002) rich (14:46 3/5/2002) andrew (20:18 3/5/2002) ToiletDuck (13:58 15/6/2002) andrew (22:36 3/5/2002) ToiletDuck (13:58 15/6/2002) andrew (10:05 7/5/2002) ToiletDuck (13:58 15/6/2002) moss (13:58 15/6/2002) mike (13:58 15/6/2002) andrew (13:58 15/6/2002) |
|
andrew | Message #10911, posted at 12:46, 3/5/2002, in reply to message #10910 |
Unregistered user | License to Kill was not a book. The Living Daylights was. |
[ Log in to reply ] | |
rich | Message #10913, posted at 14:46, 3/5/2002, in reply to message #10911 |
Unregistered user | License to Kill was not a book. The Living Daylights was.I thought it was one of those crappy knockoff Fleming wannabe books? |
[ Log in to reply ] | |
andrew | Message #10916, posted at 20:18, 3/5/2002, in reply to message #10913 |
Unregistered user | License to Kill was not a book. The Living Daylights was.I thought it was one of those crappy knockoff Fleming wannabe books? You may be right there but no a Flemming book as you say. I think Living Daylights was the last to be based on a Fleming novel. |
[ Log in to reply ] | |
andrew | Message #10918, posted at 22:36, 3/5/2002, in reply to message #10917 |
Unregistered user | When? |
[ Log in to reply ] | |
andrew | Message #10920, posted at 10:05, 7/5/2002, in reply to message #10919 |
Unregistered user | Do you mean the plane sequence where they're fighting at the cargo door? |
[ Log in to reply ] | |
andrew | Message #10906, posted at 13:58, 15/6/2002 |
Unregistered user | Timothy Dalton Animated 1976 version. No question. |
[ Log in to reply ] | |
Mark Quint | Message #10907, posted by ToiletDuck at 13:58, 15/6/2002, in reply to message #10906 |
Quack Quack
Posts: 1016 |
hrm Mr. Dalton was pretty good, as was mr Moore. LOTR is poo thou |
[ Log in to reply ] | |
moss | Message #10908, posted at 13:58, 15/6/2002, in reply to message #10907 |
Unregistered user | LOTR is poo thouI haven't seen the animated version, but the recent film was really really good - apart from the fact that they didn't develop the Hobbit's enough at all; read the book, it's great. |
[ Log in to reply ] | |
andrew | Message #10909, posted at 13:58, 15/6/2002, in reply to message #10907 |
Unregistered user | hrm
|
[ Log in to reply ] | |
moss | Message #10910, posted at 13:58, 15/6/2002, in reply to message #10909 |
Unregistered user | The book rules |
[ Log in to reply ] | |
moss | Message #10912, posted at 13:58, 15/6/2002, in reply to message #10911 |
Unregistered user | Grrrrrrr I've never read any Bond books. I've not seen too many of the films. So there. |
[ Log in to reply ] | |
mike | Message #10914, posted at 13:58, 15/6/2002, in reply to message #10910 |
Unregistered user | I liked the LOTR film - I thought it was very good but not as good as the BBC radio version. However neither are as good as the book (IMHO). I've not seen the animated version, what is it like? |
[ Log in to reply ] | |
andrew | Message #10915, posted at 13:58, 15/6/2002, in reply to message #10914 |
Unregistered user | I liked the LOTR film - I thought it was very good but not as good as the BBC radio version. However neither are as good as the book (IMHO). I thought it was great - there have been complaints about its unfaithfulness to the book but great music and atmosphere with a convincing narrative style. It was only the half of the trilogy. |
[ Log in to reply ] | |
Mark Quint | Message #10917, posted by ToiletDuck at 13:58, 15/6/2002, in reply to message #10916 |
Quack Quack
Posts: 1016 |
and the pot-bellied plane that features in that film is also great |
[ Log in to reply ] | |
Mark Quint | Message #10919, posted by ToiletDuck at 13:58, 15/6/2002, in reply to message #10918 |
Quack Quack
Posts: 1016 |
In the Living Daylights can't remember exactly when it features as its been a while since i've seen it |
[ Log in to reply ] | |
Mark Quint | Message #10921, posted by ToiletDuck at 13:58, 15/6/2002, in reply to message #10920 |
Quack Quack
Posts: 1016 |
yup thats the one |
[ Log in to reply ] | |