On 24 Jun 2022 17:28:28 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:

>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.

And Dame Judy's M /already knew Bond/ and had sent him on several
missions before her (reboot) M promoted him to 00. This is pretty much
the same problem. I was amazed at how well it worked, with M being
forever amazed/appalled by what she had unleashed, which probably had
more to do with Dame Judy than anybody else.

IIRC, at the start of the novel /Dr No/, M explains to the reader how
it is that James Bond, who died at the end of the novel /From Russia
With Love/ is, nonetheless, still alive: Mathis saved him!

So it's been done before ... and by Fleming himself ... at the
insistance of the fans.

Alternately, they could all wake up (at the start of the film, before
the credits and the film proper) in an Evil Scientist's Secret Lair to
find themselves being rescued by James Bond after being tied to drug
machines dreaming the entire reboot sequence. Which, making it the
product of a drug-induced state, might be used to explain the utter
lack of entertainment value.

IIRC, "Deep Space Nine" had an episode that ended something like that,
so /that's/ been done before too.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:9bcebh96lih6tk1hdkb8ofkg2cvvgkf1ab@4ax.com:

> On 24 Jun 2022 17:28:28 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>>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-mo
>>>>>>>> >vies-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.
>
> And Dame Judy's M /already knew Bond/ and had sent him on
> several missions before her (reboot) M promoted him to 00. This
> is pretty much the same problem. I was amazed at how well it
> worked, with M being forever amazed/appalled by what she had
> unleashed, which probably had more to do with Dame Judy than
> anybody else.
>
> IIRC, at the start of the novel /Dr No/, M explains to the
> reader how it is that James Bond, who died at the end of the
> novel /From Russia With Love/ is, nonetheless, still alive:
> Mathis saved him!
>
> So it's been done before ... and by Fleming himself ... at the
> insistance of the fans.
>
> Alternately, they could all wake up (at the start of the film,
> before the credits and the film proper) in an Evil Scientist's
> Secret Lair to find themselves being rescued by James Bond after
> being tied to drug machines dreaming the entire reboot sequence.
> Which, making it the product of a drug-induced state, might be
> used to explain the utter lack of entertainment value.
>
> IIRC, "Deep Space Nine" had an episode that ended something like
> that, so /that's/ been done before too.

Nobody did it worse than Dallas.

And nobody did it better than Bob Newhart.

--
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 6/25/2022 9:09 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2022 17:28:28 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> And Dame Judy's M /already knew Bond/ and had sent him on several
> missions before her (reboot) M promoted him to 00. This is pretty much
> the same problem. I was amazed at how well it worked, with M being
> forever amazed/appalled by what she had unleashed, which probably had
> more to do with Dame Judy than anybody else.
>
> IIRC, at the start of the novel /Dr No/, M explains to the reader how
> it is that James Bond, who died at the end of the novel /From Russia
> With Love/ is, nonetheless, still alive: Mathis saved him!
>
> So it's been done before ... and by Fleming himself ... at the
> insistance of the fans.
>
> Alternately, they could all wake up (at the start of the film, before
> the credits and the film proper) in an Evil Scientist's Secret Lair to
> find themselves being rescued by James Bond after being tied to drug
> machines dreaming the entire reboot sequence. Which, making it the
> product of a drug-induced state, might be used to explain the utter
> lack of entertainment value.
>
> IIRC, "Deep Space Nine" had an episode that ended something like that,
> so /that's/ been done before too.

The "it was all a VR simulation" is a long established trope in SF.

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

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 11:09:31 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2022 17:28:28 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> <tednolan>) wrote:
>
> >In article <nulbbhdln6n160bk2...@4ax.com>,
> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>On 23 Jun 2022 15:52:56 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> >><tednolan>) wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <5g19bh567g4hj3bp7...@4ax.com>,
> >>>Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:43:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
> >>>><taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>"peterw...@hotmail.com" <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>news:a2c1d2db-4ab2-48ea...@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.
> And Dame Judy's M /already knew Bond/ and had sent him on several
> missions before her (reboot) M promoted him to 00. This is pretty much
> the same problem. I was amazed at how well it worked, with M being
> forever amazed/appalled by what she had unleashed, which probably had
> more to do with Dame Judy than anybody else.
>
> IIRC, at the start of the novel /Dr No/, M explains to the reader how
> it is that James Bond, who died at the end of the novel /From Russia
> With Love/ is, nonetheless, still alive: Mathis saved him!
>
Plausibly, too. Tetrodotoxin kills by respiratory paralysis, and Mathis recognized
that Bond wasn't breathing and could do artificial respiration. People with severe
botulinus have been kept on ventilation for months until the affected
neuromuscular junctions are replaced.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 17:09:31 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2022 17:28:28 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> <tednolan>) wrote:
>
> >In article <nulbbhdln6n160bk2...@4ax.com>,
> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>On 23 Jun 2022 15:52:56 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> >><tednolan>) wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <5g19bh567g4hj3bp7...@4ax.com>,
> >>>Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:43:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
> >>>><taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>"peterw...@hotmail.com" <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>news:a2c1d2db-4ab2-48ea...@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.
> And Dame Judy's M /already knew Bond/ and had sent him on several
> missions before her (reboot) M promoted him to 00. This is pretty much
> the same problem. I was amazed at how well it worked, with M being
> forever amazed/appalled by what she had unleashed, which probably had
> more to do with Dame Judy than anybody else.
>
> IIRC, at the start of the novel /Dr No/, M explains to the reader how
> it is that James Bond, who died at the end of the novel /From Russia
> With Love/ is, nonetheless, still alive: Mathis saved him!
>
> So it's been done before ... and by Fleming himself ... at the
> insistance of the fans.
>
> Alternately, they could all wake up (at the start of the film, before
> the credits and the film proper) in an Evil Scientist's Secret Lair to
> find themselves being rescued by James Bond after being tied to drug
> machines dreaming the entire reboot sequence. Which, making it the
> product of a drug-induced state, might be used to explain the utter
> lack of entertainment value.
>
> IIRC, "Deep Space Nine" had an episode that ended something like that,
> so /that's/ been done before too.

This one, I think.
<https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Things_Past_%28episode%29>

However, it's clearly shown to viewers throughout
that the characters experiencing the alternate reality
are actually under medical care on Deep Space Nine...
but what's wrong with them is a mystery.

Not mentioned on that page is
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Spectre_of_the_Gun_%28episode%29>
whose relation to the topic is spoilery to discuss.
But the show may have done such things before -
I don't exactly remember. With the magic in
"Catspaw" maybe?

On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 15:07:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 17:09:31 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On 24 Jun 2022 17:28:28 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <nulbbhdln6n160bk2...@4ax.com>,
>> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >>On 23 Jun 2022 15:52:56 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>> >><tednolan>) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>In article <5g19bh567g4hj3bp7...@4ax.com>,
>> >>>Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:43:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>> >>>><taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>"peterw...@hotmail.com" <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >>>>>news:a2c1d2db-4ab2-48ea...@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.
>> And Dame Judy's M /already knew Bond/ and had sent him on several
>> missions before her (reboot) M promoted him to 00. This is pretty much
>> the same problem. I was amazed at how well it worked, with M being
>> forever amazed/appalled by what she had unleashed, which probably had
>> more to do with Dame Judy than anybody else.
>>
>> IIRC, at the start of the novel /Dr No/, M explains to the reader how
>> it is that James Bond, who died at the end of the novel /From Russia
>> With Love/ is, nonetheless, still alive: Mathis saved him!
>>
>> So it's been done before ... and by Fleming himself ... at the
>> insistance of the fans.
>>
>> Alternately, they could all wake up (at the start of the film, before
>> the credits and the film proper) in an Evil Scientist's Secret Lair to
>> find themselves being rescued by James Bond after being tied to drug
>> machines dreaming the entire reboot sequence. Which, making it the
>> product of a drug-induced state, might be used to explain the utter
>> lack of entertainment value.
>>
>> IIRC, "Deep Space Nine" had an episode that ended something like that,
>> so /that's/ been done before too.
>
>This one, I think.
><https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Things_Past_%28episode%29>
>
>However, it's clearly shown to viewers throughout
>that the characters experiencing the alternate reality
>are actually under medical care on Deep Space Nine...
>but what's wrong with them is a mystery.

Sorry, it was the one where the Dominion (IIRC) took over Deep Space
Nine ... but only in Our Heros (who lost, but with a resistance that
impressed their tormentors) joint dream.

It may have been induced by machinery rather than by drugs. Or, of
course, both together.

>Not mentioned on that page is
>https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Spectre_of_the_Gun_%28episode%29>
>whose relation to the topic is spoilery to discuss.
>But the show may have done such things before -
>I don't exactly remember. With the magic in
>"Catspaw" maybe?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 7:20:29 PM UTC+1, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:9bcebh96lih6tk1hd...@4ax.com:
> > On 24 Jun 2022 17:28:28 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> > <tednolan>) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <nulbbhdln6n160bk2...@4ax.com>,
> >>Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>>On 23 Jun 2022 15:52:56 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> >>><tednolan>) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>In article <5g19bh567g4hj3bp7...@4ax.com>,
> >>>>Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:43:00 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> >>>>>Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"peterw...@hotmail.com" <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>>in
> >>>>>>news:a2c1d2db-4ab2-48ea...@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-mo
> >>>>>>>> >vies-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.
> >
> > And Dame Judy's M /already knew Bond/ and had sent him on
> > several missions before her (reboot) M promoted him to 00. This
> > is pretty much the same problem. I was amazed at how well it
> > worked, with M being forever amazed/appalled by what she had
> > unleashed, which probably had more to do with Dame Judy than
> > anybody else.
> >
> > IIRC, at the start of the novel /Dr No/, M explains to the
> > reader how it is that James Bond, who died at the end of the
> > novel /From Russia With Love/ is, nonetheless, still alive:
> > Mathis saved him!
> >
> > So it's been done before ... and by Fleming himself ... at the
> > insistance of the fans.
> >
> > Alternately, they could all wake up (at the start of the film,
> > before the credits and the film proper) in an Evil Scientist's
> > Secret Lair to find themselves being rescued by James Bond after
> > being tied to drug machines dreaming the entire reboot sequence.
> > Which, making it the product of a drug-induced state, might be
> > used to explain the utter lack of entertainment value.
> >
> > IIRC, "Deep Space Nine" had an episode that ended something like
> > that, so /that's/ been done before too.
> Nobody did it worse than Dallas.
>
> And nobody did it better than Bob Newhart.
> --
> 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.
I note that some people seem to think that a variant of this is a subversive and clever reinterpretation of Top Gun Maverick - Maverick dies in the first reel and everything else is a dying wish fulfillment fantasy. Since my view of "it was all a dream" is that the dream sequence stands or falls on its own merits no less than the rest of the story I see little merit in this.

On Sunday, 26 June 2022 at 16:59:35 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 15:07:18 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, 25 June 2022 at 17:09:31 UTC+1, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> Alternately, they could all wake up (at the start of the film, before
> >> the credits and the film proper) in an Evil Scientist's Secret Lair to
> >> find themselves being rescued by James Bond after being tied to drug
> >> machines dreaming the entire reboot sequence. Which, making it the
> >> product of a drug-induced state, might be used to explain the utter
> >> lack of entertainment value.
> >>
> >> IIRC, "Deep Space Nine" had an episode that ended something like that,
> >> so /that's/ been done before too.
> >
> >This one, I think.
> ><https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Things_Past_%28episode%29>
> >
> >However, it's clearly shown to viewers throughout
> >that the characters experiencing the alternate reality
> >are actually under medical care on Deep Space Nine...
> >but what's wrong with them is a mystery.
> Sorry, it was the one where the Dominion (IIRC) took over Deep Space
> Nine ... but only in Our Heros (who lost, but with a resistance that
> impressed their tormentors) joint dream.
>
> It may have been induced by machinery rather than by drugs. Or, of
> course, both together.

Oh, /that/ time.
<https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/The_Search,_Part_II_%28episode%29>

Which is when the Dominion are revealed, in fact;
part two of season three, although Jem'Hadar
and a Vorta appear at the end of season two.

> >Not mentioned on that page is
> >https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Spectre_of_the_Gun_%28episode%29>
> >whose relation to the topic is spoilery to discuss.
> >But the show may have done such things before -
> >I don't exactly remember. With the magic in
> >"Catspaw" maybe?
> --
> "I begin to envy Petronius."
> "I have envied him long since."

On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 11:44:24 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 6/25/2022 9:09 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On 24 Jun 2022 17:28:28 GMT, ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
>> <tednolan>) wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> And Dame Judy's M /already knew Bond/ and had sent him on several
>> missions before her (reboot) M promoted him to 00. This is pretty much
>> the same problem. I was amazed at how well it worked, with M being
>> forever amazed/appalled by what she had unleashed, which probably had
>> more to do with Dame Judy than anybody else.
>>
>> IIRC, at the start of the novel /Dr No/, M explains to the reader how
>> it is that James Bond, who died at the end of the novel /From Russia
>> With Love/ is, nonetheless, still alive: Mathis saved him!
>>
>> So it's been done before ... and by Fleming himself ... at the
>> insistance of the fans.
>>
>> Alternately, they could all wake up (at the start of the film, before
>> the credits and the film proper) in an Evil Scientist's Secret Lair to
>> find themselves being rescued by James Bond after being tied to drug
>> machines dreaming the entire reboot sequence. Which, making it the
>> product of a drug-induced state, might be used to explain the utter
>> lack of entertainment value.
>>
>> IIRC, "Deep Space Nine" had an episode that ended something like that,
>> so /that's/ been done before too.
>
>The "it was all a VR simulation" is a long established trope in SF.

Then there was the time Buffy the Vampire Slayer woke up in the loony
bin and they tried to convince her that she was nuts. That did not
end well, or perhaps it did, depending on how you feel about being
powerful in an imaginary world vs powerless in a real one.

On 2022-06-22 9:39 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> 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.

James Bond is not a genre. But techno-thriller is. But then
techno-thriller is a crossbreed of the thriller and science fiction
genres.

On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 12:44:27 PM UTC-6, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> The "it was all a VR simulation" is a long established trope in SF.

Long-established?

Surely it wasn't around before that infamous season of Dallas gave them
the idea...

John Savard

On Monday, June 27, 2022 at 3:27:02 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> Then there was the time Buffy the Vampire Slayer woke up in the loony
> bin and they tried to convince her that she was nuts. That did not
> end well, or perhaps it did, depending on how you feel about being
> powerful in an imaginary world vs powerless in a real one.

If they tried, but failed, I'm not sure how that issue would arise.

John Savard

On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 19:07:56 -0600, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2022-06-22 9:39 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> 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.
>
>James Bond is not a genre. But techno-thriller is. But then
>techno-thriller is a crossbreed of the thriller and science fiction
>genres.

James Bond is sui generis.

And, so far as I am concerned, it /is/ a genre.

And I'm not alone: IIRC, one of the allegedly-special features for
/Kingsmen/ revealed that they made the film because /somebody/ needed
to make a James Bond Movie, and since the usual suspects were lost in
reboot land, they felt that they were nominated to do so.

So, yes, there appear to be others who feel that "James Bond" is a
film genre.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."