hygtfdw6i 2013-10-24 22:16
zephyr hats
Bond, then call him Bourne or something. Anyway, if it's designed to watch Bond Evolve into the Sauve British Secret Agent, then I'm all in. For now, I'm liking it. My only major problem was that I thought Casino Royale's _EDITING_ sucked larks vomit. It really stood out to me. Which nominally editing never should. Good editing, is editing you don't notice. imo. Continuity was somewhat fragged,[url=http://www.snapbacksite.com/mmg-snapback/]MMG Snapback[/url], (how come Bond doesn't apparently evolve from the opening Black&White scene to post-July 6,[url=http://www.snapbacksite.com/diamond-supply-co-hats/]Diamond Supply CO Hats[/url], 2006? - we're supposed to believe Bond remained un-refined, all the way from his Double-O inception through to 2006? - and why does M ask Bond if he's sure that Mathis is guilty? didn't LeChiffre tell him he was with his "Your Friend Mathis is My Friend Mathis" remark to Bond?) However,[url=http://www.snapbacksite.com/only-snapbck/]Only Snapbck[/url], I suppose you could argue that the latter was the continuity-department's fault, or that "uh we planned to intimate that Bond doesn't tell M everything he knows when he talks to her" or some such post-facto explanation but personally I find it very hard to believe that he'd just skip over telling her something that important. (or maybe it was their way of leaving a thread clearly open-ended and unresolved in the minds of the audience, to hint that the next Bond film is going to be a direct continuation of Casino Royale ? - Ed) Which it is going to be, reportedly. But I still maintain they need a bloody good reason why Bond doesn't tell M what LeChiffre told him about Mathis. Certainly better than "because we're making a sequel and we wanted the audience to know it". Still, I'll let that one go until the sequel is out and we see what their answer to this apparent snafu is. but that situation combined with Bond not evolving into the refined bond until post 2006? ^Raise-Eyebrow. OK,snapbacksite2013, let's leave both those aside then, perhaps the blame (or answers - Ed) there can be laid at the feet of the writers (Purvis, Wade and Haggis - Ed), and lets move onto the
相关的主题文章:
[url=http://www.huaou-group.com/shownews.asp?id=87]vintage snapback[/url]
[url=http://demo.dgw8.com/cn/026/shownews.asp?id=929293]youth snapback hats[/url]
[url=http://www.huaou-group.com/shownews.asp?id=412]women snapback hats[/url]