Wycket

I got a couple
Cliff Eidelman -- Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Brian Tyler -- Children of Dune

Its an incredible tracking shot that any modern filmmaker would be jealous of for sure.

Barry really had a knack for lush and romantic music as well as great action cues. I did a re-edit of Never Say Never Again using cues from both Howard the Duck and Barry's score to Raise the Titantic and it fit Bond like a glove.  He truly encapsulated the character and the sound of the genre in such a magnificent way, and I think many fail to appreciate his scores away from Bond.  Before I even really appreciated film music I used to love watching Somewhere in Time, and coming back to it as an adult I realize it was largely due to Barry's wonderful music.
 
I'm interested to hear the music as I certainly have no interest in watching this film again.  I made the mistake about a decade ago,,,,never again.
 
 

Barry really had a knack for lush and romantic music as well as great action cues. I did a re-edit of Never Say Never Again using cues from both Howard the Duck and Barry's score to Raise the Titantic and it fit Bond like a glove.  He truly encapsulated the character and the sound of the genre in such a magnificent way, and I think many fail to appreciate his scores away from Bond.  Before I even really appreciated film music I used to love watching Somewhere in Time, and coming back to it as an adult I realize it was largely due to Barry's wonderful music.
 
I'm interested to hear the music as I certainly have no interest in watching this film again.  I made the mistake about a decade ago,,,,never again.
 
 

Reading through the thread, I guess I'm in the minority that really enjoyed this season.
 
I thought the cast was well devised and I enjoyed the team aspect.  It felt like the Davison era done right, with only the Arachnids episode really not working for me (though I like how quickly the Doctor latched onto protecting Yaz's mum).
 
Overall, I enjoyed the less frenetic, more focused stories that were being told, and I appreciated the Davies/Moffat perchance for appealing to the lowest denominator at times was thrown out the window.  In a previous season, Grace definitely would have been brought back to life, and the fact that Chibnall didn't do this solved a big problem in Who were anything big or emotional would be undone and lose all the impact.  Chibnall has proven he is willing to sacrifice characters and I truly appreciate that there are some stakes again in Who.
 
As for The Doctor, I enjoyed Whittaker's schoolgirl charm and enthusiasm which she brought to the role.  It seemed a bit like Davison and Tennant merged and the fact that as a woman now the Doctor couldn't just step right into every room and take charge as in previous times. It was a concept I would have liked to seen developed more but it was done enough to get the point across for me.
 
I'd definitely like to see more episodes like these going forward, but I'm afraid that the general "meh" outcry by most will force the BBC to go more POP! going forward and lose the more down to Earth and basics approach this season had. Maybe there will be a nice middle ground where Chibnall can have his cake and eat it to, but I'm afraid to a return to the type of storytelling that I've grown tried of and was waiting for the show to rid itself of when Moffat left as showrunner.

At this point most are simply assuming Loki's staff in the mind gem based off its capabilities. For some reason Marvel decided to change all the colors of the Infinity Gems in the films so until they actually mention something concrete its just speculation at this point. All the others are confirmed.

If you are digging McGann, I would start with Blood of the Daleks, the introduction to his 4 Series that Big Finish did to simulate his time as a Doctor if he was on tv.  Each series has an overarching plot, and is a nice bridge between classic Who and the modern series.  Lucy Miller (played by Sheridan Smith) is a fantastic companion and some of the stories are really great, which reference classic stories or bring back some former big bads.
 
If just looking for general recommendations, I'd take a look at Colin Baker's stories, as he really shines in most of his stories and proves if given a proper treatment by some competent people, would have been a great doctor.  
 
Here's some stories I enjoy
The One Doctor
Jubilee (adapted on tv as Dalek)
Spare Parts (adapted on tv as Rise of the Cybermen)
Love and War
Master (loosely inspired Utopia)
The Foe from the Future
The Light at the End (big 50th anniversary story featuring all living classic doctors and some companions)
 

If you are digging McGann, I would start with Blood of the Daleks, the introduction to his 4 Series that Big Finish did to simulate his time as a Doctor if he was on tv.  Each series has an overarching plot, and is a nice bridge between classic Who and the modern series.  Lucy Miller (played by Sheridan Smith) is a fantastic companion and some of the stories are really great, which reference classic stories or bring back some former big bads.
 
If just looking for general recommendations, I'd take a look at Colin Baker's stories, as he really shines in most of his stories and proves if given a proper treatment by some competent people, would have been a great doctor.  
 
Here's some stories I enjoy
The One Doctor
Jubilee (adapted on tv as Dalek)
Spare Parts (adapted on tv as Rise of the Cybermen)
Love and War
Master (loosely inspired Utopia)
The Foe from the Future
The Light at the End (big 50th anniversary story featuring all living classic doctors and some companions)
 

The guy with the cigarette was the one that Gus relived of his duties in Season 4 (Victor I think was his name).  As for Jimmy being a good spy, you realize he was actually terrible at it.  He did nothing but stare at the guy the whole time, even moving his seat to be closer to him.  Gus obviously was watching and noticed something was wrong, and when Jimmy stuck his head in the garbage can it was clearly after Gus called off the drop (remember, the guy didn't have the bag the previous day but did that day, so no drop occurred).  
 
One thing is clear though is that Gilligan really is a fantastic director and comes up with some great visuals.  The shot on top of the drainage pipes which looked like something out of the silent era was absolutely gorgeous.
 
 

Is it so bad to have some mystery to a film? I enjoy not knowing every detail about a film before its released. Hell, I got spoiled about Oblivion before I saw it in an article that wasn't even about the movie. I reminisce of the days when I was growing up and only had a few vague details about what a movie is. The movie should be an experience, and if in the movie itself a character's identity is a secret, than it should be for the audience as well. Into Darkness suffered only because everyone wanted you know who to be the villain since the release of the first in '09.

Anybody interested in watching this, TCM is showing this and a select number of Williams scored movies on MONDAY September 12, including a showing of Spielberg's AFI show as well. 
 
I missed the initial showing so this will be my first time watching the full event so I'm looking forward.  Hopefully anyone else that missed it will get the chance to see it for the first time.

I tried to make it clear I wanted Bond the character, the one we saw throughout the 60s films which was a fairly good representation of the character rather than the caricature he became starting with Diamonds Are Forever.
Personally, I enjoy many Bond films from all the eras. The character itself is very interesting, but over time all was lost and he just became another superhero that couldn't get hurt. Dalton tried to bring back some actual vulnerabilities to the character, but he was still hampered by many of the things from the Moore franchise that began to define the franchise. Licence to Kill showed they were willing to move away from the comfort zone, but once GoldenEye came around things regressed and by the time Die Another Day came around, things had become a joke. The filmmakers lost touch with making a good film and were only concerned with hitting all the marks they needed to make a proper "Bond film."
In an age where everyone seems to deride remakes and rehashes of old films, it still surprises me that so many want to return to the old Bond formula, as all that does is essentially remake the same few stories again and again such as Goldfinger being remade as A View to a Kill and You Only Live Twice being remade at least twice in both The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker (arguably Tomorrow Never Dies as well but that link is far more tenuous).
Since Craig has come into the role, they've realized they can tell an interesting story without being dependent on following a formula. There are still call backs and qualities of the old series still alive and in play in the current films, but they are implemented much better than they have been in a long time and allow much more creativity and freedom for the filmmakers.

I tried to make it clear I wanted Bond the character, the one we saw throughout the 60s films which was a fairly good representation of the character rather than the caricature he became starting with Diamonds Are Forever.
Personally, I enjoy many Bond films from all the eras. The character itself is very interesting, but over time all was lost and he just became another superhero that couldn't get hurt. Dalton tried to bring back some actual vulnerabilities to the character, but he was still hampered by many of the things from the Moore franchise that began to define the franchise. Licence to Kill showed they were willing to move away from the comfort zone, but once GoldenEye came around things regressed and by the time Die Another Day came around, things had become a joke. The filmmakers lost touch with making a good film and were only concerned with hitting all the marks they needed to make a proper "Bond film."
In an age where everyone seems to deride remakes and rehashes of old films, it still surprises me that so many want to return to the old Bond formula, as all that does is essentially remake the same few stories again and again such as Goldfinger being remade as A View to a Kill and You Only Live Twice being remade at least twice in both The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker (arguably Tomorrow Never Dies as well but that link is far more tenuous).
Since Craig has come into the role, they've realized they can tell an interesting story without being dependent on following a formula. There are still call backs and qualities of the old series still alive and in play in the current films, but they are implemented much better than they have been in a long time and allow much more creativity and freedom for the filmmakers.

I tried to make it clear I wanted Bond the character, the one we saw throughout the 60s films which was a fairly good representation of the character rather than the caricature he became starting with Diamonds Are Forever.
Personally, I enjoy many Bond films from all the eras. The character itself is very interesting, but over time all was lost and he just became another superhero that couldn't get hurt. Dalton tried to bring back some actual vulnerabilities to the character, but he was still hampered by many of the things from the Moore franchise that began to define the franchise. Licence to Kill showed they were willing to move away from the comfort zone, but once GoldenEye came around things regressed and by the time Die Another Day came around, things had become a joke. The filmmakers lost touch with making a good film and were only concerned with hitting all the marks they needed to make a proper "Bond film."
In an age where everyone seems to deride remakes and rehashes of old films, it still surprises me that so many want to return to the old Bond formula, as all that does is essentially remake the same few stories again and again such as Goldfinger being remade as A View to a Kill and You Only Live Twice being remade at least twice in both The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker (arguably Tomorrow Never Dies as well but that link is far more tenuous).
Since Craig has come into the role, they've realized they can tell an interesting story without being dependent on following a formula. There are still call backs and qualities of the old series still alive and in play in the current films, but they are implemented much better than they have been in a long time and allow much more creativity and freedom for the filmmakers.

I tried to make it clear I wanted Bond the character, the one we saw throughout the 60s films which was a fairly good representation of the character rather than the caricature he became starting with Diamonds Are Forever.
Personally, I enjoy many Bond films from all the eras. The character itself is very interesting, but over time all was lost and he just became another superhero that couldn't get hurt. Dalton tried to bring back some actual vulnerabilities to the character, but he was still hampered by many of the things from the Moore franchise that began to define the franchise. Licence to Kill showed they were willing to move away from the comfort zone, but once GoldenEye came around things regressed and by the time Die Another Day came around, things had become a joke. The filmmakers lost touch with making a good film and were only concerned with hitting all the marks they needed to make a proper "Bond film."
In an age where everyone seems to deride remakes and rehashes of old films, it still surprises me that so many want to return to the old Bond formula, as all that does is essentially remake the same few stories again and again such as Goldfinger being remade as A View to a Kill and You Only Live Twice being remade at least twice in both The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker (arguably Tomorrow Never Dies as well but that link is far more tenuous).
Since Craig has come into the role, they've realized they can tell an interesting story without being dependent on following a formula. There are still call backs and qualities of the old series still alive and in play in the current films, but they are implemented much better than they have been in a long time and allow much more creativity and freedom for the filmmakers.

I tried to make it clear I wanted Bond the character, the one we saw throughout the 60s films which was a fairly good representation of the character rather than the caricature he became starting with Diamonds Are Forever.
Personally, I enjoy many Bond films from all the eras. The character itself is very interesting, but over time all was lost and he just became another superhero that couldn't get hurt. Dalton tried to bring back some actual vulnerabilities to the character, but he was still hampered by many of the things from the Moore franchise that began to define the franchise. Licence to Kill showed they were willing to move away from the comfort zone, but once GoldenEye came around things regressed and by the time Die Another Day came around, things had become a joke. The filmmakers lost touch with making a good film and were only concerned with hitting all the marks they needed to make a proper "Bond film."
In an age where everyone seems to deride remakes and rehashes of old films, it still surprises me that so many want to return to the old Bond formula, as all that does is essentially remake the same few stories again and again such as Goldfinger being remade as A View to a Kill and You Only Live Twice being remade at least twice in both The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker (arguably Tomorrow Never Dies as well but that link is far more tenuous).
Since Craig has come into the role, they've realized they can tell an interesting story without being dependent on following a formula. There are still call backs and qualities of the old series still alive and in play in the current films, but they are implemented much better than they have been in a long time and allow much more creativity and freedom for the filmmakers.

Maybe because fans of the Bond character, like myself are tired of the formula and welcome the return to the intrinsic and layered character that Fleming created and originally drew us to the character.
I am a fan of many of the movies post Connery, but the 60s films are so much more interesting by and large because there were no expectations. The plot didn't have to hit certain points and follow some sort of checklist to be deemed good. The best Bond films were always by and large the ones that were different and didn't just follow the formula, so why do people like you want this type of thing back so much. There's nearly 20 films where Bond is simply a caricature, go and watch those if that's all you want from the character. Let those who enjoy the book version of the character enjoy what they've been doing.

Maybe because fans of the Bond character, like myself are tired of the formula and welcome the return to the intrinsic and layered character that Fleming created and originally drew us to the character.
I am a fan of many of the movies post Connery, but the 60s films are so much more interesting by and large because there were no expectations. The plot didn't have to hit certain points and follow some sort of checklist to be deemed good. The best Bond films were always by and large the ones that were different and didn't just follow the formula, so why do people like you want this type of thing back so much. There's nearly 20 films where Bond is simply a caricature, go and watch those if that's all you want from the character. Let those who enjoy the book version of the character enjoy what they've been doing.

Maybe because fans of the Bond character, like myself are tired of the formula and welcome the return to the intrinsic and layered character that Fleming created and originally drew us to the character.
I am a fan of many of the movies post Connery, but the 60s films are so much more interesting by and large because there were no expectations. The plot didn't have to hit certain points and follow some sort of checklist to be deemed good. The best Bond films were always by and large the ones that were different and didn't just follow the formula, so why do people like you want this type of thing back so much. There's nearly 20 films where Bond is simply a caricature, go and watch those if that's all you want from the character. Let those who enjoy the book version of the character enjoy what they've been doing.

I have a female friend who is a BIG Tennant fangirl. It took her until midway into 6 to start liking Smith at all and still holds quite a flame for 10.
That being said, she immediately got hooked by Capaldi and is loving this incarnation. It would seem that while she was brought in presumably by a hawt Doc, she is staying around for the good stories and acting. So if her reaction is anything to go by, I don't think there is a big backlash against Capaldi as he's already proven himself to be amazing in the role.
BTW, did anyone happen to catch After Who on BBC America following Deep Breath. Gatiss told a story of him inviting Capaldi to the set of AAISAT to look at the old TARDIS and what not and Capaldi lamented that he was too old to play the Doctor, all while Gatiss knew they were looking at him to replace Smith. It really comes through how much he enjoys the show and being a part of it.

Right, because someone wanting to own a movie and not waiting years for it to discount that low is so unfathomable to comprehend. Completely beyond the realm of human imagination.

For anyone that's interested, the new remastered version of Robocop on Blu is available for $5 currently on Amazon. Just picked it up after hearing great things about the new transfer.

Tell that to Vesper, Tracy, Renee, or Felix. Bond is not a devoid of emotions man, and at times can get downright teary eyed and sincere. Hell, the whole point of Skyfall was that he wanted his humanity back, but when someone he cared for (M) was endangered, he came back to protect her.

The X-Men were made as a way for writers to express their frustration by the Comics Code Authority and the strict rules it imposed on what could and couldn't be discussed. By using "mutants" in place of a number of different oppressed groups, writers were allowed to tackle more weighty issues and instill young audiences with new ideas. This has always been the X-Men story telling by and large, and the fact that the movies follow suit is only appropriate.

The X-Men were made as a way for writers to express their frustration by the Comics Code Authority and the strict rules it imposed on what could and couldn't be discussed. By using "mutants" in place of a number of different oppressed groups, writers were allowed to tackle more weighty issues and instill young audiences with new ideas. This has always been the X-Men story telling by and large, and the fact that the movies follow suit is only appropriate.