Feeling objective is not being so. But it gets easily confused.
In the end, it´s just about stating a preference.
1 Like
I agree , but it’s making a fun commute to work . I would happily watch either at any time over any number of other movies.
4 Likes
GE, often touted as Pierce’s best, has to be better than Quantum, right?
Again, that’s subjective, but I’d say so, yes.
Mind you, I wouldn’t go out of my way to see either of them.
Again I would place them about equal
QOS slightly edges GE for me. I do consider GE Pierce’s overall best, yet I simply prefer the tone of Craig’s films over his.
“Conversations With McCartney” by Paul Du Noyer.
Yes, it was quite illuminating in spots and paints McCartney as a surprisingly normal person, considering the life he’s led. It goes deeper than the “thumbs-up” goofball character he’s constructed – willingly or not – over decades of five-minute interviews, without straying into the kind of supposition and psychoanalyzing that a lot of third-party biographers indulge in. It had neither the defensive, sanitized air of an “officially approved” bio nor the tell-all prurience of countless junk reads.
I checked it out from the library because I’ve already got too many Beatle/McCartney texts and I’m running out of shelf space. But I have considered giving in and buying a copy, even if it means swapping it out for something I’ve already got.
1 Like
i will definitely check this out. The best one I’ve read so far was Fab: The Intimate Life of Paul McCartney. I’m also waiting (and waiting) for the second Mark Lewisham Tune In: All These Years book to come out.
In an effort to bring this (sort of) back to Bond, the best McCartney revelation of last year for me had to be hearing his early take on “Live And Let Die”, a bonus track on the re-released “Red Rose Speedway” album. There, I could hear plain as day Paul singing “…but in this ever-changin’ world in which we’re livin’…” which made me all kinds of happy. As a language nerd, it’s always grated on me that he says, “this ever-changin’ world in which we live in” on the official track. Now I can dismiss that as a slip of the tongue and not just sloppy English.
Of course that’s in defiance of McCartney’s own (half-joking) declaration that if he sings someone else’s song wrong it’s a mistake, but if he sings his own wrong, it’s a re-write. 
4 Likes
Apple music might be referencing the “official” lyrics registered with ASCAP, which I won’t deny is the grammatically incorrect version. It might be more instructive to run it through a closed-captioning service (though those are notoriously inefficient, too).
I am willing to admit the possibility I’m doing some “wishful hearing,” but if evidence is introduced that counters my interpretation, I can easily do the reverse, pushing my index fingers into my ears and humming as loudly as possible.
You could well be right. Or if there’s a human at the keyboard doing the transcribing, they could just be familiar with the song, and so they “hear” the part in question as it’s always been known to be, as opposed to what’s said in this one performance.
Anyway, it’s a nice, clean recording, but it really gives you an appreciation for the contributions of George Martin and that full orchestra.
What’s most remarkable about the song is how it shows (not for the first time) how Paul was able to take a left turn into completely unfamiliar waters and come up with something wildly different from anything he’d done before. I know his experiments could yield colossal face-plants as well as triumphs, but what an exciting period that was from him.
3 Likes
I too still hear “we”.
No, he’s clearly saying “Yanni.”
2 Likes
Are you deaf?!? It’s Laurel!
And the dress color?
Well I’m not sure this qualifies as a ‘shocking confession’ - and call me a hidebound traditionalist - but I still feel annoyed by the way the Craig-era films have been messing around with the gunbarrel.
The DAD bullet was bad enough, but when I sit down to watch a Bond film I expect it to behave like a Bond film and kick off with those iconic white dots traversing the screen and generating that unique brand of adrenalin rush.
Enough of this tiresome “We’re too cool for any of that dated Maurice Binder s**t - leave that to your Dad’s 007” nonsense. Any old run-of-the-mill movie can go the ‘cold opening’ route.
Spectre may well have its flaws - and plenty of them - but this, at least, is one big point in its favour.
1 Like
While I agree with you that they should never have tampered with it to begin with (barring perhaps CR), I am more bothered by the inconsistency within the Craig era regarding the gun barrel. After QoS and SF, it seemed like they finally settled on moving it to the end of the film for the Craig era (except for its symbolic placement at the end of the CR PTS)-- in fact, I found this to be a nice distinction between the original timeline (gun barrel at the beginning) and the reboot timeline (gun barrel at the end). The same goes for the silver design of the gun barrels for CR, QoS, and SF-- they were markedly different than the Binder design, and were a nice touch for the reboot era. But then the SP gun barrel came along and abandoned both of these points, returning to Binder’s more traditional black and white gun barrel, and placing the thing at the beginning of the film. And why? To please some fans who had been criticizing the gun barrels for over a decade? Now the whole Craig era to me feels disjointed.
I am much kinder to SP overall than most fans are, but it is things like this (and the inexplicable return of the DB5 after its ceremonious destruction in SF) that make me think EON care more about supposedly pleasing fans than making a solid, coherent movie.
I agree that the gunbarrel should always be at the start - it helps to set the Bond movies apart from others. However, I think it won’t be at the start of Bond 25.
Shocking confession: I don‘t really care where the gunbarrel is placed and how it is animated.
6 Likes
I acknowledge that this is really more a case of sentimental attachment than rational argument - i.e. not the biggest of deals - and agree that subtle and clever variations on a long-established theme are preferable to the kind of chopping-and-changing that tends to dilute the films’ unique identity - well, at least, in the mind of someone who has been enjoying them, on and off, for nigh on half a century.
Opening with the gunbarrel is by no means a copper-bottomed guarantee of quality, yet it serves as a sort of cinematic comfort food. Some might argue that it’s good to be taken out of one’s comfort zone every once in a while, yet I would prefer that to be in the realms of plot or character, rather than by tampering with stylistic tics. Again, though, we’re talking minor gripes.