On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
<davidnbrown80@gmail.com> wrote:

>Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally reviewed a Bond movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction elements of that film. My further thought has been that the franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own nominations or further thoughts?
>https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-one-with-james-bond.html

I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.

Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science Fiction, not
merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but because a private
individual has built it. Today that seems less unlikely than it did
then.

But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden Gun/
(movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it was said to be
able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently it had a conversion
efficiency of sunlight to electricity of about 10,000:1. With 100:1
being the highest possible efficiency.

But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction film. It is a
James Bond film with Science Fiction elements.

Or, of course, it is both.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 21 Jun 2022 16:33:37 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:

>In article <JjmsK.154732$X_i.14825@fx18.iad>,
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:43:30 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>I also quite like the film version; it's not like there haven't
>>>>been a number of actors playing Bond (not as many as the Doctor, yet).
>>>
>>>Not at the time it came out. Connery was Bond up to that point. Well,
>>>in the official series, at least.
>>>
>>>And it worked so well they brought Connery back for the next one ...
>>>and then moved on to Moore.
>>
>>They brought Connery back because Lazenby refused to play bond again.
>>
>>
>> Lazenby appeared at the premiere with a beard, looking "very
>> un-Bond-like", according to the Daily Mirror. Lazenby claimed
>> the producers had tried to persuade him to shave it off to appear
>> like Bond, but by then he had already decided not to make another
>> Bond film and rejected the idea.
>>
>> Because Lazenby had informed the producers that On Her Majesty's
>> Secret Service was to be his only outing as Bond and because of the
>> lack of gadgets used by Bond in the film, few items of merchandise
>> were produced for the film, apart from the soundtrack album and a
>> film edition of the book
>
>I'm not sure I've seen "merchandise" from any of the films. Is that a
>big part of the franchaise?
>
>Also "film edition of the book" sounds like... the movie :-)

Perhaps there was a "film novelization".

As opposed to the actual novel.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally reviewed a Bond movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction elements of that film. My further thought has been that the franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own nominations or further thoughts?
> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-one-with-james-bond.html
> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>
> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science Fiction, not
> merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but because a private
> individual has built it. Today that seems less unlikely than it did
> then.
>
> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden Gun/
> (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it was said to be
> able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently it had a conversion
> efficiency of sunlight to electricity of about 10,000:1. With 100:1
> being the highest possible efficiency.
>
> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction film. It is a
> James Bond film with Science Fiction elements.
>
> Or, of course, it is both.

Possibly call them technothrillers?

Peter Wezeman
ani-social Darwinist

On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 16:40:03 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally reviewed a Bond movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction elements of that film. My further thought has been that the franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own nominations or further thoughts?
> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-one-with-james-bond.html
> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>
> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science Fiction, not
> merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but because a private
> individual has built it. Today that seems less unlikely than it did
> then.
>
> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden Gun/
> (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it was said to be
> able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently it had a conversion
> efficiency of sunlight to electricity of about 10,000:1. With 100:1
> being the highest possible efficiency.

And that one where he has an electromagnet
that unzips ladies' dresses. Speaking of you-saw-the-
film-now-buy-the-accessories. :-)

> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction film. It is a
> James Bond film with Science Fiction elements.
>
> Or, of course, it is both.
> --
> "I begin to envy Petronius."
> "I have envied him long since."

"peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:a2c1d2db-4ab2-48ea-b55d-a54c17de663en@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally
>> >reviewed a Bond
> movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction
> elements of that film. My further thought has been that the
> franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at
> least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that
> the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand
> experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst"
> Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never
> Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own
> nominations or further thoughts?
>> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-o
>> >ne-with-j
> ames-bond.html
>> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>>
>> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science
>> Fiction, not merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but
>> because a private individual has built it. Today that seems
>> less unlikely than it did then.
>>
>> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden
>> Gun/ (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it
>> was said to be able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently it
>> had a conversion efficiency of sunlight to electricity of about
>> 10,000:1. With 100:1 being the highest possible efficiency.
>>
>> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction film.
>> It is a James Bond film with Science Fiction elements.
>>
>> Or, of course, it is both.
>
> Possibly call them technothrillers?
>
If one denies that "James Bond movies" is its own genre, which is a
bold position, technothriller or spy thriller would be where it
would fit best.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 8:40:03 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally reviewed a Bond movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction elements of that film. My further thought has been that the franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own nominations or further thoughts?
> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-one-with-james-bond.html
> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>
> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science Fiction, not
> merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but because a private
> individual has built it. Today that seems less unlikely than it did
> then.
>
> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden Gun/
> (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it was said to be
> able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently it had a conversion
> efficiency of sunlight to electricity of about 10,000:1. With 100:1
> being the highest possible efficiency.
>
> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction film. It is a
> James Bond film with Science Fiction elements.
>
> Or, of course, it is both.
> --
> "I begin to envy Petronius."
> "I have envied him long since."
I very briefly mentioned in the Moonraker review, The Man With A Golden Gun has one of the most realistic depictions of an energy weapon I've seen. What I remember is that Christopher Lee points the death ray thingy at an airplane which then blows up, without a visible ray or any sound effects. As I recall, another sequence does show the beam as visible, so the shot where they got it right might have been just because they didn't want to pay for extra effects.

Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> writes:
>
> More upscale, BMW got a car used by Bond in "Tomorrow Never Dies" and made a two-purpose commercial for both.
> (Not the first time he's strayed from Aston Martin, there was a Lotus in "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "For Your Eyes Only".)

My recollection is "Goldfinger" was his only turn in the Aston Martin
(until he brought the "same" car out of storage in... one of the Craig
movies, anyway).

I remember him as owning a Bentley in the books.

Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>
> And many other cars in different movies, from a Rolls Royce Silver
> Cloud to a Tuk Tuk taxi. Various Astin Martins are, of course, the
> most common brand.
>
> https://manofmany.com/rides/cars/james-bond-cars-complete-list

I wish I'd read this before I posted; clearly I misremembered.

Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in
news:1bh74ckr7b.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net:

> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>> And many other cars in different movies, from a Rolls Royce
>> Silver Cloud to a Tuk Tuk taxi. Various Astin Martins are, of
>> course, the most common brand.
>>
>> https://manofmany.com/rides/cars/james-bond-cars-complete-list
>
> I wish I'd read this before I posted; clearly I misremembered.

Google is your friend. Well, no, not your *friend*, really they want
to eat you liver, but they're certainly useful for looking up useless
trivia.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:43:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>"peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:a2c1d2db-4ab2-48ea-b55d-a54c17de663en@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>>> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally
>>> >reviewed a Bond
>> movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction
>> elements of that film. My further thought has been that the
>> franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at
>> least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that
>> the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand
>> experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst"
>> Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never
>> Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own
>> nominations or further thoughts?
>>> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-o
>>> >ne-with-j
>> ames-bond.html
>>> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>>>
>>> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science
>>> Fiction, not merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but
>>> because a private individual has built it. Today that seems
>>> less unlikely than it did then.
>>>
>>> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden
>>> Gun/ (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it
>>> was said to be able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently it
>>> had a conversion efficiency of sunlight to electricity of about
>>> 10,000:1. With 100:1 being the highest possible efficiency.
>>>
>>> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction film.
>>> It is a James Bond film with Science Fiction elements.
>>>
>>> Or, of course, it is both.
>>
>> Possibly call them technothrillers?
>>
>If one denies that "James Bond movies" is its own genre, which is a
>bold position, technothriller or spy thriller would be where it
>would fit best.

In that case, I would choose "spy thriller", except perhaps for the
reboot Bonds. I have read/seen technothrillers, but none were as
impressive as the James Bond films. And the "Girl" franchise was,
IMHO, /The Girl in the Spider's Web/, which was a common
technothriller, checking off all the relevant boxes.

Indeed, I suppose one way to conceptualize the difference is to say
that the earlier Bonds were "spy thrillers" and the reboot Bonds (now
apparently finished) were "technothrillers". They would, however, be
/superior/ technothrillers.

But, of course, for me, the correct genre is "James Bond movies".
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 12:35:38 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 16:40:03 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally reviewed a Bond movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction elements of that film. My further thought has been that the franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own nominations or further thoughts?
>> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-one-with-james-bond.html
>> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>>
>> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science Fiction, not
>> merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but because a private
>> individual has built it. Today that seems less unlikely than it did
>> then.
>>
>> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden Gun/
>> (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it was said to be
>> able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently it had a conversion
>> efficiency of sunlight to electricity of about 10,000:1. With 100:1
>> being the highest possible efficiency.
>
>And that one where he has an electromagnet
>that unzips ladies' dresses. Speaking of you-saw-the-
>film-now-buy-the-accessories. :-)

Yes, there are many gadgets that may not be technically feasible, even
today. Rather more in the later films than the earlier films. The
safe-crackers are something one /hopes/ are not feasible, for example.

OTOH, the photocopier in /OHMSS/ was (except perhaps for being
portable) a typical device of its kind, producing paper copies that
roll up with brownish print. Possibly even "wet process" -- which
Xerox [1] stamped out a bit later.

But the Water Bike in /The Spy Who Loved Me/ was an actual product
with a logo visible on-screen and a credit telling the audience where
they could buy one.

The cars /alone/ got so fantastic that one of them literally
disappeared in one film. And were satirized in /xXx/, a sure sign of
cultural penetration.

Somewhere, I suppose, there is an exhaustive list of these things.

[1] "xeros", of course, means "dry" in Greek.
<https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the/greek-word-for-ef926a85211da9af3ba5a2a40a60fb7a729d63c2.html>
Note that the Greek words starts with ksi (not zeta, not chi) and the
first vowel is eta, so the "xiros" shown is a variant on "xeros" and
both are using "x" for "ks". Such are the wonders of transcription.

>> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction film. It is a
>> James Bond film with Science Fiction elements.
>>
>> Or, of course, it is both.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

In article <5g19bh567g4hj3bp76blmkmp3g21nqpkpu@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:43:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
><taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:a2c1d2db-4ab2-48ea-b55d-a54c17de663en@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>>>> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally
>>>> >reviewed a Bond
>>> movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction
>>> elements of that film. My further thought has been that the
>>> franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at
>>> least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that
>>> the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand
>>> experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst"
>>> Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never
>>> Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own
>>> nominations or further thoughts?
>>>> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-o
>>>> >ne-with-j
>>> ames-bond.html
>>>> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science
>>>> Fiction, not merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but
>>>> because a private individual has built it. Today that seems
>>>> less unlikely than it did then.
>>>>
>>>> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden
>>>> Gun/ (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it
>>>> was said to be able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently it
>>>> had a conversion efficiency of sunlight to electricity of about
>>>> 10,000:1. With 100:1 being the highest possible efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction film.
>>>> It is a James Bond film with Science Fiction elements.
>>>>
>>>> Or, of course, it is both.
>>>
>>> Possibly call them technothrillers?
>>>
>>If one denies that "James Bond movies" is its own genre, which is a
>>bold position, technothriller or spy thriller would be where it
>>would fit best.
>
>In that case, I would choose "spy thriller", except perhaps for the
>reboot Bonds. I have read/seen technothrillers, but none were as
>impressive as the James Bond films. And the "Girl" franchise was,
>IMHO, /The Girl in the Spider's Web/, which was a common
>technothriller, checking off all the relevant boxes.
>
>Indeed, I suppose one way to conceptualize the difference is to say
>that the earlier Bonds were "spy thrillers" and the reboot Bonds (now
>apparently finished) were "technothrillers". They would, however, be
>/superior/ technothrillers.

It will be interesting to see where they go next. I think given the
ending of the last one, they will have to replace the entire cast for
the next entry. Hopefully no new MGM crises will interpose itself.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:5g19bh567g4hj3bp76blmkmp3g21nqpkpu@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:43:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:a2c1d2db-4ab2-48ea-b55d-a54c17de663en@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, Paul S
>>> Person wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>>>> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally
>>>> >reviewed a Bond
>>> movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction
>>> elements of that film. My further thought has been that the
>>> franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at
>>> least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that
>>> the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first
>>> hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the
>>> "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say
>>> Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have
>>> their own nominations or further thoughts?
>>>> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies
>>>> >-o ne-with-j
>>> ames-bond.html
>>>> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science
>>>> Fiction, not merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but
>>>> because a private individual has built it. Today that seems
>>>> less unlikely than it did then.
>>>>
>>>> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden
>>>> Gun/ (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it
>>>> was said to be able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently
>>>> it had a conversion efficiency of sunlight to electricity of
>>>> about 10,000:1. With 100:1 being the highest possible
>>>> efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction film.
>>>> It is a James Bond film with Science Fiction elements.
>>>>
>>>> Or, of course, it is both.
>>>
>>> Possibly call them technothrillers?
>>>
>>If one denies that "James Bond movies" is its own genre, which
>>is a bold position, technothriller or spy thriller would be
>>where it would fit best.
>
> In that case, I would choose "spy thriller", except perhaps for
> the reboot Bonds. I have read/seen technothrillers, but none
> were as impressive as the James Bond films. And the "Girl"
> franchise was, IMHO, /The Girl in the Spider's Web/, which was a
> common technothriller, checking off all the relevant boxes.
>
> Indeed, I suppose one way to conceptualize the difference is to
> say that the earlier Bonds were "spy thrillers" and the reboot
> Bonds (now apparently finished) were "technothrillers". They
> would, however, be /superior/ technothrillers.

I'd put the books into "spy thrillers," and by comparison, the
movies (all of them) more towards "technothrillers."
>
> But, of course, for me, the correct genre is "James Bond
> movies".

But that is the bottom line. The studios *never* market them as
techno- or spy thrillers, only as "James Bond movies." And the only
meaningful definition of *any* genre is the marketing one: "We're
calling this x because we believe people who spent money on other
stuff we've called x will spend money on this if we call it x."

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in
news:jhjgioFfpdcU1@mid.individual.net:

> In article <5g19bh567g4hj3bp76blmkmp3g21nqpkpu@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:43:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:a2c1d2db-4ab2-48ea-b55d-a54c17de663en@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, Paul S
>>>> Person wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>>>>> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally
>>>>> >reviewed a Bond
>>>> movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction
>>>> elements of that film. My further thought has been that the
>>>> franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at
>>>> least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that
>>>> the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first
>>>> hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the
>>>> "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say
>>>> Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have
>>>> their own nominations or further thoughts?
>>>>> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movie
>>>>> >s-o ne-with-j
>>>> ames-bond.html
>>>>> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science
>>>>> Fiction, not merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but
>>>>> because a private individual has built it. Today that seems
>>>>> less unlikely than it did then.
>>>>>
>>>>> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden
>>>>> Gun/ (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it
>>>>> was said to be able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently
>>>>> it had a conversion efficiency of sunlight to electricity of
>>>>> about 10,000:1. With 100:1 being the highest possible
>>>>> efficiency.
>>>>>
>>>>> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction
>>>>> film. It is a James Bond film with Science Fiction elements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or, of course, it is both.
>>>>
>>>> Possibly call them technothrillers?
>>>>
>>>If one denies that "James Bond movies" is its own genre, which
>>>is a bold position, technothriller or spy thriller would be
>>>where it would fit best.
>>
>>In that case, I would choose "spy thriller", except perhaps for
>>the reboot Bonds. I have read/seen technothrillers, but none
>>were as impressive as the James Bond films. And the "Girl"
>>franchise was, IMHO, /The Girl in the Spider's Web/, which was a
>>common technothriller, checking off all the relevant boxes.
>>
>>Indeed, I suppose one way to conceptualize the difference is to
>>say that the earlier Bonds were "spy thrillers" and the reboot
>>Bonds (now apparently finished) were "technothrillers". They
>>would, however, be /superior/ technothrillers.
>
> It will be interesting to see where they go next. I think given
> the ending of the last one, they will have to replace the entire
> cast for the next entry. Hopefully no new MGM crises will
> interpose itself.

The only thing we can be certain of is that there will *be* a next
one. (And that the black woman who was 007 in the last one won't be
Bond in the next one. The people who control the franchise have
made that very clear. Might still be 007, I supposed, but won't be
"Bond, James Bond" because the essense of that character is
fundamentally male.)

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

In article <XnsAEBF708297F6taustingmail@85.12.62.245>,
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in
>news:jhjgioFfpdcU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> In article <5g19bh567g4hj3bp76blmkmp3g21nqpkpu@4ax.com>,
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:43:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>news:a2c1d2db-4ab2-48ea-b55d-a54c17de663en@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, Paul S
>>>>> Person wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>>>>>> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally
>>>>>> >reviewed a Bond
>>>>> movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction
>>>>> elements of that film. My further thought has been that the
>>>>> franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at
>>>>> least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that
>>>>> the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first
>>>>> hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the
>>>>> "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say
>>>>> Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have
>>>>> their own nominations or further thoughts?
>>>>>> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movie
>>>>>> >s-o ne-with-j
>>>>> ames-bond.html
>>>>>> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science
>>>>>> Fiction, not merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but
>>>>>> because a private individual has built it. Today that seems
>>>>>> less unlikely than it did then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden
>>>>>> Gun/ (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it
>>>>>> was said to be able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently
>>>>>> it had a conversion efficiency of sunlight to electricity of
>>>>>> about 10,000:1. With 100:1 being the highest possible
>>>>>> efficiency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction
>>>>>> film. It is a James Bond film with Science Fiction elements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, of course, it is both.
>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly call them technothrillers?
>>>>>
>>>>If one denies that "James Bond movies" is its own genre, which
>>>>is a bold position, technothriller or spy thriller would be
>>>>where it would fit best.
>>>
>>>In that case, I would choose "spy thriller", except perhaps for
>>>the reboot Bonds. I have read/seen technothrillers, but none
>>>were as impressive as the James Bond films. And the "Girl"
>>>franchise was, IMHO, /The Girl in the Spider's Web/, which was a
>>>common technothriller, checking off all the relevant boxes.
>>>
>>>Indeed, I suppose one way to conceptualize the difference is to
>>>say that the earlier Bonds were "spy thrillers" and the reboot
>>>Bonds (now apparently finished) were "technothrillers". They
>>>would, however, be /superior/ technothrillers.
>>
>> It will be interesting to see where they go next. I think given
>> the ending of the last one, they will have to replace the entire
>> cast for the next entry. Hopefully no new MGM crises will
>> interpose itself.
>
>The only thing we can be certain of is that there will *be* a next
>one. (And that the black woman who was 007 in the last one won't be
>Bond in the next one. The people who control the franchise have
>made that very clear. Might still be 007, I supposed, but won't be
>"Bond, James Bond" because the essense of that character is
>fundamentally male.)
>

Yeah, the point there (for all the pre-release you-tube angsting) was
just that MI6 apparently always has (at least) 7 "00" agents. "Hey, you quit
so we hired someone" She was never Bond. (After the end events she
might well be 007 again however, even assuming her off-the-cuff request
for an in-mission redesignation was official in the first place).
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 06:00:44 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in
>news:1bh74ckr7b.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net:
>)
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>> And many other cars in different movies, from a Rolls Royce
>>> Silver Cloud to a Tuk Tuk taxi. Various Astin Martins are, of
>>> course, the most common brand.
>>>
>>> https://manofmany.com/rides/cars/james-bond-cars-complete-list
>>
>> I wish I'd read this before I posted; clearly I misremembered.
>
>Google is your friend. Well, no, not your *friend*, really they want
>to eat you liver, but they're certainly useful for looking up useless
>trivia.

Back in the 70s and 80s a West Vancouver restauranteur Frank Baker
purchased one of the 1964 Aston Martin DB5's used in Thunderball (some
of these - there were at least 4 of them - were also used in
Goldfinger.)

The one he owned was displayed under the canopy at
https://www.flickr.com/photos/34917706@N07/5256656416/in/photostream/
in a plexiglass (or was it stronger glass?) outside his restaurant
along with a "All you need is love" car formerly owned by John Lennon.
It's a place my parents would often go in my teens and twenties.

Baker died in 1989 and both the Bond and Lennon cars were sold at
auction. Anybody have idea the present owner of either of these and if
and where they are currently displayed?

In the case of the "Bondmobile" (that was the local name) it's harder
to trace since it was one of several more or less identical Aston
Martin DB5's used in Thunderball. My brother as a boy collected Corgi
toys and Corgi had made a 3" long replica of this Bond car - I've no
idea if my brother still has it since the last time I saw it the gold
paint had seen some rough handling. (He and I had great fun operating
the working ejector seat in front of our cat) The fact that it was
painted gold color suggests Baker's may have been one of the ones used
in Goldfinger as well though he never claimed it was - just
Thunderball.

Any ID or suggests greatly appreciated.

On 6/23/2022 11:23 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <XnsAEBF708297F6taustingmail@85.12.62.245>,
> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in
>> news:jhjgioFfpdcU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> In article <5g19bh567g4hj3bp76blmkmp3g21nqpkpu@4ax.com>,
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:43:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:a2c1d2db-4ab2-48ea-b55d-a54c17de663en@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, Paul S
>>>>>> Person wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>>>>>>> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally
>>>>>>>> reviewed a Bond
>>>>>> movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction
>>>>>> elements of that film. My further thought has been that the
>>>>>> franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at
>>>>>> least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that
>>>>>> the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first
>>>>>> hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the
>>>>>> "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say
>>>>>> Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have
>>>>>> their own nominations or further thoughts?
>>>>>>>> https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movie
>>>>>>>> s-o ne-with-j
>>>>>> ames-bond.html
>>>>>>> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science
>>>>>>> Fiction, not merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but
>>>>>>> because a private individual has built it. Today that seems
>>>>>>> less unlikely than it did then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden
>>>>>>> Gun/ (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it
>>>>>>> was said to be able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently
>>>>>>> it had a conversion efficiency of sunlight to electricity of
>>>>>>> about 10,000:1. With 100:1 being the highest possible
>>>>>>> efficiency.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction
>>>>>>> film. It is a James Bond film with Science Fiction elements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or, of course, it is both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Possibly call them technothrillers?
>>>>>>
>>>>> If one denies that "James Bond movies" is its own genre, which
>>>>> is a bold position, technothriller or spy thriller would be
>>>>> where it would fit best.
>>>>
>>>> In that case, I would choose "spy thriller", except perhaps for
>>>> the reboot Bonds. I have read/seen technothrillers, but none
>>>> were as impressive as the James Bond films. And the "Girl"
>>>> franchise was, IMHO, /The Girl in the Spider's Web/, which was a
>>>> common technothriller, checking off all the relevant boxes.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, I suppose one way to conceptualize the difference is to
>>>> say that the earlier Bonds were "spy thrillers" and the reboot
>>>> Bonds (now apparently finished) were "technothrillers". They
>>>> would, however, be /superior/ technothrillers.
>>>
>>> It will be interesting to see where they go next. I think given
>>> the ending of the last one, they will have to replace the entire
>>> cast for the next entry. Hopefully no new MGM crises will
>>> interpose itself.
>>
>> The only thing we can be certain of is that there will *be* a next
>> one. (And that the black woman who was 007 in the last one won't be
>> Bond in the next one. The people who control the franchise have
>> made that very clear. Might still be 007, I supposed, but won't be
>> "Bond, James Bond" because the essense of that character is
>> fundamentally male.)
>>
>
> Yeah, the point there (for all the pre-release you-tube angsting) was
> just that MI6 apparently always has (at least) 7 "00" agents. "Hey, you quit
> so we hired someone" She was never Bond. (After the end events she
> might well be 007 again however, even assuming her off-the-cuff request
> for an in-mission redesignation was official in the first place).

Well the current Broccoli in charge has previously said they won't make
any final decisions on the future direction of the Bond franchise for at
least 2 or 3 more years. I get the impression they are thinking hard
and deep about how it is going to continue.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 15:11:07 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
<davidnbrown80@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 8:40:03 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally reviewed a Bond movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction elements of that film. My further thought has been that the franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own nominations or further thoughts?
>> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-one-with-james-bond.html
>> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>>
>> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science Fiction, not
>> merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but because a private
>> individual has built it. Today that seems less unlikely than it did
>> then.
>>
>> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden Gun/
>> (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it was said to be
>> able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently it had a conversion
>> efficiency of sunlight to electricity of about 10,000:1. With 100:1
>> being the highest possible efficiency.
>>
>> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction film. It is a
>> James Bond film with Science Fiction elements.
>>
>> Or, of course, it is both.
>
>I very briefly mentioned in the Moonraker review, The Man With A Golden Gun has one of the most realistic depictions of an energy weapon I've seen. What I remember is that Christopher Lee points the death ray thingy at an airplane which then blows up, without a visible ray or any sound effects. As I recall, another sequence does show the beam as visible, so the shot where they got it right might have been just because they didn't want to pay for extra effects.

I'm working my way through the James Bond films (about 1 a week, in
order), and the small cannon-sized death ray thingy does indeed
destroy the airplane Bond flew to his island in /The Man With the
Golden Gun/ (the reference, at least in the film, is to the gun that
can be disassembled into a pen, a lighter, and so on and then
reassembled, hence the "the").

But I didn't respond this morning because how do I prove a negative?

It was only when walking back from the grocery store this afternoon
that I remembered, hopefully correctly, that in /Moonraker/ one of Q's
assistants tests a hand-held ray gun on a mannequin.

You may be conflating the two in the sense of putting them both in the
same movie. As opposed to conflating them by mixing them up or putting
them together into a single event.

That's one problem with the Bond films -- it can sometimes be hard to
remember just exactly which film a particularly memorable scene
occurred.

But then, I suppose the same is beginning to be true of the Marvel
films, as they increase in number -- or, rather, would if they /had/
any memorable scense in them.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thursday, June 23, 2022 at 11:46:48 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 12:35:38 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 at 16:40:03 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
> >> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally reviewed a Bond movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction elements of that film. My further thought has been that the franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own nominations or further thoughts?
> >> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-one-with-james-bond.html
> >> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
> >>
> >> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science Fiction, not
> >> merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but because a private
> >> individual has built it. Today that seems less unlikely than it did
> >> then.
> >>
> >> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden Gun/
> >> (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it was said to be
> >> able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently it had a conversion
> >> efficiency of sunlight to electricity of about 10,000:1. With 100:1
> >> being the highest possible efficiency.
> >
> >And that one where he has an electromagnet
> >that unzips ladies' dresses. Speaking of you-saw-the-
> >film-now-buy-the-accessories. :-)
> Yes, there are many gadgets that may not be technically feasible, even
> today. Rather more in the later films than the earlier films. The
> safe-crackers are something one /hopes/ are not feasible, for example.

Your hopes are dashed, I'm afraid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkk-2QEUvuk

Pt

On 23 Jun 2022 15:52:56 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:

>In article <5g19bh567g4hj3bp76blmkmp3g21nqpkpu@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:43:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>><taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:a2c1d2db-4ab2-48ea-b55d-a54c17de663en@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>>>>> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally
>>>>> >reviewed a Bond
>>>> movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction
>>>> elements of that film. My further thought has been that the
>>>> franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at
>>>> least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that
>>>> the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand
>>>> experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst"
>>>> Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never
>>>> Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own
>>>> nominations or further thoughts?
>>>>> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-o
>>>>> >ne-with-j
>>>> ames-bond.html
>>>>> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science
>>>>> Fiction, not merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but
>>>>> because a private individual has built it. Today that seems
>>>>> less unlikely than it did then.
>>>>>
>>>>> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden
>>>>> Gun/ (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it
>>>>> was said to be able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently it
>>>>> had a conversion efficiency of sunlight to electricity of about
>>>>> 10,000:1. With 100:1 being the highest possible efficiency.
>>>>>
>>>>> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction film.
>>>>> It is a James Bond film with Science Fiction elements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or, of course, it is both.
>>>>
>>>> Possibly call them technothrillers?
>>>>
>>>If one denies that "James Bond movies" is its own genre, which is a
>>>bold position, technothriller or spy thriller would be where it
>>>would fit best.
>>
>>In that case, I would choose "spy thriller", except perhaps for the
>>reboot Bonds. I have read/seen technothrillers, but none were as
>>impressive as the James Bond films. And the "Girl" franchise was,
>>IMHO, /The Girl in the Spider's Web/, which was a common
>>technothriller, checking off all the relevant boxes.
>>
>>Indeed, I suppose one way to conceptualize the difference is to say
>>that the earlier Bonds were "spy thrillers" and the reboot Bonds (now
>>apparently finished) were "technothrillers". They would, however, be
>>/superior/ technothrillers.
>
>It will be interesting to see where they go next. I think given the
>ending of the last one, they will have to replace the entire cast for
>the next entry. Hopefully no new MGM crises will interpose itself.

Dame Judy was surprisingly effective as M in /Casino Royale/, despite
playing M in the last few entertaining Bond films. So maybe not the
/entire/ cast.

And that presupposes that they don't just resurrect the reboot Bond,
fix his "unfixable" problem, and continue on making reboot Bonds.

Or just do a second set of reboot Bonds. Even if they change the
entire cast, there is no reason to believe they will starting making
entertaining Bond films again. So, maybe its selected members of the
/moveimakers/ who need to be replaced (writers, directors, people that
actually determine the tone of the film).

But you are right -- it will be interesting to see where they go next.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 23 Jun 2022 18:23:12 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:

>In article <XnsAEBF708297F6taustingmail@85.12.62.245>,
>Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in
>>news:jhjgioFfpdcU1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> In article <5g19bh567g4hj3bp76blmkmp3g21nqpkpu@4ax.com>,
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:43:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>>Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>news:a2c1d2db-4ab2-48ea-b55d-a54c17de663en@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, Paul S
>>>>>> Person wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>>>>>>> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally
>>>>>>> >reviewed a Bond
>>>>>> movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction
>>>>>> elements of that film. My further thought has been that the
>>>>>> franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at
>>>>>> least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that
>>>>>> the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first
>>>>>> hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the
>>>>>> "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say
>>>>>> Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have
>>>>>> their own nominations or further thoughts?
>>>>>>> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movie
>>>>>>> >s-o ne-with-j
>>>>>> ames-bond.html
>>>>>>> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science
>>>>>>> Fiction, not merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but
>>>>>>> because a private individual has built it. Today that seems
>>>>>>> less unlikely than it did then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden
>>>>>>> Gun/ (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it
>>>>>>> was said to be able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently
>>>>>>> it had a conversion efficiency of sunlight to electricity of
>>>>>>> about 10,000:1. With 100:1 being the highest possible
>>>>>>> efficiency.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction
>>>>>>> film. It is a James Bond film with Science Fiction elements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or, of course, it is both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Possibly call them technothrillers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>If one denies that "James Bond movies" is its own genre, which
>>>>>is a bold position, technothriller or spy thriller would be
>>>>>where it would fit best.
>>>>
>>>>In that case, I would choose "spy thriller", except perhaps for
>>>>the reboot Bonds. I have read/seen technothrillers, but none
>>>>were as impressive as the James Bond films. And the "Girl"
>>>>franchise was, IMHO, /The Girl in the Spider's Web/, which was a
>>>>common technothriller, checking off all the relevant boxes.
>>>>
>>>>Indeed, I suppose one way to conceptualize the difference is to
>>>>say that the earlier Bonds were "spy thrillers" and the reboot
>>>>Bonds (now apparently finished) were "technothrillers". They
>>>>would, however, be /superior/ technothrillers.
>>>
>>> It will be interesting to see where they go next. I think given
>>> the ending of the last one, they will have to replace the entire
>>> cast for the next entry. Hopefully no new MGM crises will
>>> interpose itself.
>>
>>The only thing we can be certain of is that there will *be* a next
>>one. (And that the black woman who was 007 in the last one won't be
>>Bond in the next one. The people who control the franchise have
>>made that very clear. Might still be 007, I supposed, but won't be
>>"Bond, James Bond" because the essense of that character is
>>fundamentally male.)
>>
>
>Yeah, the point there (for all the pre-release you-tube angsting) was
>just that MI6 apparently always has (at least) 7 "00" agents. "Hey, you quit
>so we hired someone" She was never Bond. (After the end events she
>might well be 007 again however, even assuming her off-the-cuff request
>for an in-mission redesignation was official in the first place).

IIRC, there are mentions of up to 0012.

What, you thought all the numbers were 3 digits? In the novel /You
Only Live Twice/, Bond starts out transferred to the diplomatic
service as 7777.

How many do we see in /Thunderball/ where they are (presumably) all in
the same room being briefed?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

In article <nulbbhdln6n160bk2ntb103ef6gf7o42vf@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On 23 Jun 2022 15:52:56 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>In article <5g19bh567g4hj3bp76blmkmp3g21nqpkpu@4ax.com>,
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:43:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>><taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>news:a2c1d2db-4ab2-48ea-b55d-a54c17de663en@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>>>>>> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally
>>>>>> >reviewed a Bond
>>>>> movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction
>>>>> elements of that film. My further thought has been that the
>>>>> franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at
>>>>> least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that
>>>>> the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand
>>>>> experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst"
>>>>> Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never
>>>>> Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own
>>>>> nominations or further thoughts?
>>>>>> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-o
>>>>>> >ne-with-j
>>>>> ames-bond.html
>>>>>> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science
>>>>>> Fiction, not merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but
>>>>>> because a private individual has built it. Today that seems
>>>>>> less unlikely than it did then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden
>>>>>> Gun/ (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it
>>>>>> was said to be able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently it
>>>>>> had a conversion efficiency of sunlight to electricity of about
>>>>>> 10,000:1. With 100:1 being the highest possible efficiency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction film.
>>>>>> It is a James Bond film with Science Fiction elements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, of course, it is both.
>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly call them technothrillers?
>>>>>
>>>>If one denies that "James Bond movies" is its own genre, which is a
>>>>bold position, technothriller or spy thriller would be where it
>>>>would fit best.
>>>
>>>In that case, I would choose "spy thriller", except perhaps for the
>>>reboot Bonds. I have read/seen technothrillers, but none were as
>>>impressive as the James Bond films. And the "Girl" franchise was,
>>>IMHO, /The Girl in the Spider's Web/, which was a common
>>>technothriller, checking off all the relevant boxes.
>>>
>>>Indeed, I suppose one way to conceptualize the difference is to say
>>>that the earlier Bonds were "spy thrillers" and the reboot Bonds (now
>>>apparently finished) were "technothrillers". They would, however, be
>>>/superior/ technothrillers.
>>
>>It will be interesting to see where they go next. I think given the
>>ending of the last one, they will have to replace the entire cast for
>>the next entry. Hopefully no new MGM crises will interpose itself.
>
>Dame Judy was surprisingly effective as M in /Casino Royale/, despite
>playing M in the last few entertaining Bond films. So maybe not the
>/entire/ cast.
>
>And that presupposes that they don't just resurrect the reboot Bond,
>fix his "unfixable" problem, and continue on making reboot Bonds.
>
>Or just do a second set of reboot Bonds. Even if they change the
>entire cast, there is no reason to believe they will starting making
>entertaining Bond films again. So, maybe its selected members of the
>/moveimakers/ who need to be replaced (writers, directors, people that
>actually determine the tone of the film).
>
>But you are right -- it will be interesting to see where they go next.
>--

Hope this is not a spoiler by this point, but if you didn't see
the last Bond, skip...

Well, Dame Judy was already gone, but I say they'll have to replace
the entire cast because those people all "saw" James Bond die and
were at his 5 minute wake. They can't just bring in the next actor
for Bond and keep those folks. The previous mini-reboots were
Dick York/Dick Sargent things. Not this one.

--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 6/24/2022 8:31 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2022 15:52:56 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>> In article <5g19bh567g4hj3bp76blmkmp3g21nqpkpu@4ax.com>,
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:43:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>>> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:a2c1d2db-4ab2-48ea-b55d-a54c17de663en@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>>>>>> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally
>>>>>>> reviewed a Bond
>>>>> movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction
>>>>> elements of that film. My further thought has been that the
>>>>> franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at
>>>>> least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that
>>>>> the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand
>>>>> experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst"
>>>>> Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never
>>>>> Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own
>>>>> nominations or further thoughts?
>>>>>>> https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-o
>>>>>>> ne-with-j
>>>>> ames-bond.html
>>>>>> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science
>>>>>> Fiction, not merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but
>>>>>> because a private individual has built it. Today that seems
>>>>>> less unlikely than it did then.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the Golden
>>>>>> Gun/ (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction since it
>>>>>> was said to be able to /solve/ the energy crisis. Apparently it
>>>>>> had a conversion efficiency of sunlight to electricity of about
>>>>>> 10,000:1. With 100:1 being the highest possible efficiency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction film.
>>>>>> It is a James Bond film with Science Fiction elements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, of course, it is both.
>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly call them technothrillers?
>>>>>
>>>> If one denies that "James Bond movies" is its own genre, which is a
>>>> bold position, technothriller or spy thriller would be where it
>>>> would fit best.
>>>
>>> In that case, I would choose "spy thriller", except perhaps for the
>>> reboot Bonds. I have read/seen technothrillers, but none were as
>>> impressive as the James Bond films. And the "Girl" franchise was,
>>> IMHO, /The Girl in the Spider's Web/, which was a common
>>> technothriller, checking off all the relevant boxes.
>>>
>>> Indeed, I suppose one way to conceptualize the difference is to say
>>> that the earlier Bonds were "spy thrillers" and the reboot Bonds (now
>>> apparently finished) were "technothrillers". They would, however, be
>>> /superior/ technothrillers.
>>
>> It will be interesting to see where they go next. I think given the
>> ending of the last one, they will have to replace the entire cast for
>> the next entry. Hopefully no new MGM crises will interpose itself.
>
> Dame Judy was surprisingly effective as M in /Casino Royale/, despite
> playing M in the last few entertaining Bond films. So maybe not the
> /entire/ cast.
>
> And that presupposes that they don't just resurrect the reboot Bond,
> fix his "unfixable" problem, and continue on making reboot Bonds.
>
Mr. Craig wanted out, he feels he's gotten too old and injured to
continue as Bond.

> Or just do a second set of reboot Bonds. Even if they change the
> entire cast, there is no reason to believe they will starting making
> entertaining Bond films again. So, maybe its selected members of the
> /moveimakers/ who need to be replaced (writers, directors, people that
> actually determine the tone of the film).
>
> But you are right -- it will be interesting to see where they go next.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote in
news:t958qd$h6a$1@dont-email.me:

> On 6/24/2022 8:31 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On 23 Jun 2022 15:52:56 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <5g19bh567g4hj3bp76blmkmp3g21nqpkpu@4ax.com>,
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:43:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>> in
>>>>> news:a2c1d2db-4ab2-48ea-b55d-a54c17de663en@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, Paul S
>>>>>> Person wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>>>>>>> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally
>>>>>>>> reviewed a Bond
>>>>>> movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction
>>>>>> elements of that film. My further thought has been that the
>>>>>> franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at
>>>>>> least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression
>>>>>> that the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have
>>>>>> first hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking
>>>>>> into the "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was
>>>>>> Never Say Never Again, the one people often don't count.
>>>>>> Anyone have their own nominations or further thoughts?
>>>>>>>> https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-mov
>>>>>>>> ies-o ne-with-j
>>>>>> ames-bond.html
>>>>>>> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science
>>>>>>> Fiction, not merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but
>>>>>>> because a private individual has built it. Today that
>>>>>>> seems less unlikely than it did then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the
>>>>>>> Golden Gun/ (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction
>>>>>>> since it was said to be able to /solve/ the energy crisis.
>>>>>>> Apparently it had a conversion efficiency of sunlight to
>>>>>>> electricity of about 10,000:1. With 100:1 being the
>>>>>>> highest possible efficiency.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction
>>>>>>> film. It is a James Bond film with Science Fiction
>>>>>>> elements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or, of course, it is both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Possibly call them technothrillers?
>>>>>>
>>>>> If one denies that "James Bond movies" is its own genre,
>>>>> which is a bold position, technothriller or spy thriller
>>>>> would be where it would fit best.
>>>>
>>>> In that case, I would choose "spy thriller", except perhaps
>>>> for the reboot Bonds. I have read/seen technothrillers, but
>>>> none were as impressive as the James Bond films. And the
>>>> "Girl" franchise was, IMHO, /The Girl in the Spider's Web/,
>>>> which was a common technothriller, checking off all the
>>>> relevant boxes.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, I suppose one way to conceptualize the difference is
>>>> to say that the earlier Bonds were "spy thrillers" and the
>>>> reboot Bonds (now apparently finished) were
>>>> "technothrillers". They would, however, be /superior/
>>>> technothrillers.
>>>
>>> It will be interesting to see where they go next. I think
>>> given the ending of the last one, they will have to replace
>>> the entire cast for the next entry. Hopefully no new MGM
>>> crises will interpose itself.
>>
>> Dame Judy was surprisingly effective as M in /Casino Royale/,
>> despite playing M in the last few entertaining Bond films. So
>> maybe not the /entire/ cast.
>>
>> And that presupposes that they don't just resurrect the reboot
>> Bond, fix his "unfixable" problem, and continue on making
>> reboot Bonds.
>>
> Mr. Craig wanted out, he feels he's gotten too old and injured
> to continue as Bond.

There are those who argued that he was too old when he was first
cast.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in
news:jhmahsFto0iU1@mid.individual.net:

> In article <nulbbhdln6n160bk2ntb103ef6gf7o42vf@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>On 23 Jun 2022 15:52:56 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>><tednolan>) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5g19bh567g4hj3bp76blmkmp3g21nqpkpu@4ax.com>,
>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:43:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>>Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"peterwezeman@hotmail.com" <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>in
>>>>>news:a2c1d2db-4ab2-48ea-b55d-a54c17de663en@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-5, Paul S
>>>>>> Person wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>>>>>>> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally
>>>>>>> >reviewed a Bond
>>>>>> movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction
>>>>>> elements of that film. My further thought has been that the
>>>>>> franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at
>>>>>> least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression
>>>>>> that the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have
>>>>>> first hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking
>>>>>> into the "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was
>>>>>> Never Say Never Again, the one people often don't count.
>>>>>> Anyone have their own nominations or further thoughts?
>>>>>>> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-mov
>>>>>>> >ies-o ne-with-j
>>>>>> ames-bond.html
>>>>>>> I keep forgetting to add this to my other responses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, /Moonraker/ can be regarded as near-future Science
>>>>>>> Fiction, not merely because the Evil Lair is in orbit but
>>>>>>> because a private individual has built it. Today that
>>>>>>> seems less unlikely than it did then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But then, arguably, the "solex" in /The Man With the
>>>>>>> Golden Gun/ (movie) could also be consider Science Fiction
>>>>>>> since it was said to be able to /solve/ the energy crisis.
>>>>>>> Apparently it had a conversion efficiency of sunlight to
>>>>>>> electricity of about 10,000:1. With 100:1 being the
>>>>>>> highest possible efficiency.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But in another sense, no, it is /not/ a Science Fiction
>>>>>>> film. It is a James Bond film with Science Fiction
>>>>>>> elements.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or, of course, it is both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Possibly call them technothrillers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>If one denies that "James Bond movies" is its own genre,
>>>>>which is a bold position, technothriller or spy thriller
>>>>>would be where it would fit best.
>>>>
>>>>In that case, I would choose "spy thriller", except perhaps
>>>>for the reboot Bonds. I have read/seen technothrillers, but
>>>>none were as impressive as the James Bond films. And the
>>>>"Girl" franchise was, IMHO, /The Girl in the Spider's Web/,
>>>>which was a common technothriller, checking off all the
>>>>relevant boxes.
>>>>
>>>>Indeed, I suppose one way to conceptualize the difference is
>>>>to say that the earlier Bonds were "spy thrillers" and the
>>>>reboot Bonds (now apparently finished) were "technothrillers".
>>>>They would, however, be /superior/ technothrillers.
>>>
>>>It will be interesting to see where they go next. I think
>>>given the ending of the last one, they will have to replace the
>>>entire cast for the next entry. Hopefully no new MGM crises
>>>will interpose itself.
>>
>>Dame Judy was surprisingly effective as M in /Casino Royale/,
>>despite playing M in the last few entertaining Bond films. So
>>maybe not the /entire/ cast.
>>
>>And that presupposes that they don't just resurrect the reboot
>>Bond, fix his "unfixable" problem, and continue on making reboot
>>Bonds.
>>
>>Or just do a second set of reboot Bonds. Even if they change the
>>entire cast, there is no reason to believe they will starting
>>making entertaining Bond films again. So, maybe its selected
>>members of the /moveimakers/ who need to be replaced (writers,
>>directors, people that actually determine the tone of the film).
>>
>>But you are right -- it will be interesting to see where they go
>>next. --
>
>
> Hope this is not a spoiler by this point, but if you didn't see
> the last Bond, skip...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Well, Dame Judy was already gone, but I say they'll have to
> replace the entire cast because those people all "saw" James
> Bond die and were at his 5 minute wake. They can't just bring
> in the next actor for Bond and keep those folks. The previous
> mini-reboots were Dick York/Dick Sargent things. Not this one.
>
Or it turns out he wasn't really dead, and they "fixed" the whole
nanobot thing, and it was all in preparation for this next mission
(remember, they've killed him to set up a mission before).

It would suck, pretty badly, but stupider things have been done
(like invisible cars).

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB