Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Comments
Except that it isn't. For example: Bond's wife was murdered in OHMSS and that was referenced in "For Your Eyes Only" and also "License To Kill".
And this whole film is completely built around characters and plot elements from previous Daniel Craig films. Madeleine Swann, Blofeld and Felix Leiter for example.
The biggest inconsistency in the Bond universe is that at the end of each movie he teams up with what seems like the perfect girl for him but the she's nowhere to be seen by the time the next film rolls around.
I’m pretty sure Superman died a few years ago. Ironman as well. 🤷♂️
You nailed it!
The Daniel Craig films have all been part of a story arc - I’m not sure it was originally planned that way, as there are some inconsistencies looking back, but there’s a start and end to his time as Bond. And his films have been of generally high quality, including this latest one. I’m sure that whoever / whatever comes next will add something fresh.
If anything, a dead Bond makes me wanna see this one after skipping the past few.
Superman and god were both dead, you know.
A few people have said this and it is the best "reason" I have heard for killing off Bond but all Bond actors have have a "start and an end" to their run in the role and you don't mark the end by killing off the main character.
If you show early Bond becoming a "00", as the did with Craig in "Casino Royale", then there is a way forward with that. But when you kill him there isn't a way forward. You've killed the character.
If the next Bond has "a story arc" then do you kill him at the end of his run? You might only live twice but can you also die twice?
And surely the reason they make films about 007 and not 003 or 004 or 006 is that James Bond 007 is the one who never gets it wrong. The bad guys never beat him. That's what makes him worthy of a 60 year film series. In this film Bond misjudges the situation and the bad guy kills him. That's not our James Bond. That's some new age, sensitive male, woke crap that Craig's ego dreamt up.
But some people are ok with Bond being a daddy with a 5 year old kid and getting killed at the end.
I get a chuckle when I imagine going to Cubby Broccoli in the 1970s and saying to him "Cubby, I've got a great new plot for your next Bond film - Bond gets a chick pregnant, the baddie kidnaps the kid and the mum, Bond goes to rescue them but gets it wrong and gets blown to smithereens. What do you think?"...
The original books were full of Bond fuckups. Some fatal for others, and some just damned painful for him.
It is quite a few decades since I read the books and my memory isn't that great - perhaps someone can remind me which was the book where Bond had a kid & was killed at the end of the story?
I'm waiting for the Bond movie where he turns to the camera and starts singing and dancing a la Fred Astaire.
And when that happens some will argue "well, why not. It's not the 1960s anymore. Maybe it's time for a fresh, new take on Bond?".
@Simon : artistic license permits artists to do whatever they want. Their choice isn't working for you, but they can change the rules. They can try to do something new or something that changes how we see the work that came before...or simply shake things up so the series doesn't become a tired exercise. One may or may not like the result of those choices, but artistic license applies. They are free to make up new rules.
Of course. And I am free to grumble about when I don't like it.
Ah fuck, they always do this. The first movie with a new actor is great and then they run it into the ground over time.
what do ya bet in the next film it turns out he faked his death just SO he can live a more normal life with his wife and kid..but, not for the lack of trying, he's pulled back out again?
i'd put money[penny] on it.
Sounds like every other treasured male film character.
Killed to make room for a female 007 next time around. Witness Ghostbusters, Dr Who. It's lame. Create new and wonderful characters, to stand alongside those from before.
I know that Barbara Broccoli has stated emphatically that Bond is male, but never underestimate the malign power of studios.
At the end of the film we see him blown to bits. It is shown clearly - no quick edting, tricky cut aways etc..
Also, before he is killed, the baddie contaminates him with the deadly "DNA viirus nano bots" and he can never touch the mother or kid again or it will kill them. The baddie really got him this time....
Did you read that Jodie Whitakker is leaving Doctor Who after the next series along with the hopeless show runner Chirs Chibnall? Thank goodness!
Also Russell T. Davis will take over again as the new show runner. He ran the show when Eccleston and Tennant were playing the doctor.
I think Babs and her half brother Michael G. Wilson and Daniel Craig made all the woke creative decisions on this film, not MGM or Universal.
After "Spectre", Craig said he would "rather crawl over broken glass" than make another Bond film. I am guessing they offered him a mega cheque and partial creative control to get him to do this one. And I bet he had it in the contract that the ending had to have Bond dying. Actors love this stuff - playing the big emotional scene.
BONUS FACTOID: did you know that Michael G. Wilson's dad played the first movie "Batman" in the 1943 15-part serial? He did it again in the sequel serial in 1949. I love those old Batman series. Corny as hell, lots of fistfights and great suits.
wow. sounds like they really doubled-down. idk i feel like with every new actor that's introduced to play Bond i almost read it as the same happening with the character and a new person is just stepping in to play 'James Bond'.
it would surprise me more if it wasn't Daniel Craig's last movie.
Lockdown hit you hard.
Yes, it's normally a continuation of the character but just with a new actor. Crag's run is a bit different as at the start of his first film Bond is not yet a "00".
The funny thing is it is a very good Bond movie apart from the woke stuff. Great stunts and action scenes, great production design, great lighting/editing/audio, great acting - it's a top quality Bond movie apart from the "daddy Bond" and "Bond dying" plot twists.
@Simon you say that Bond misjudges the situation and the bad guy kills him. Not my reading of the situation on either count - he makes a conscious decision to go back in, knowing the risk, to ensure the job gets done. And it is the missiles from his own side that do for him, not the bad guy. I think it is an effective way to end the Daniel Craig era.
And although he did not have a kid in the books, he did get married and plan to settle down, and I think the echoes of that done in this film (from OHMSS) are very effective and moving.
Bond misjudges the situation by not taking care of the baddie. This starts a series of events that kills Bond. The baddie kills him in the sense that the bad guy wounds Bond badly, delaying him from getting off the island in time.
The sequence is:
Q tells Bond he has to open the blast doors and that it will take about 9 minutes to launch the missiles. He askes "do you think you can do it before the ships arrive?" and Bond replys "Plenty of time, plenty of time".
Bond then has a big shootout with a lot of guys in the stairwell on his way to the control room. He flicks all the switches in the control room and gets the blast doors open. Bond then gives the ok to launch the missiles as he leaves the control room. We see the missiles launch.
Bond is running to escape, thinking he's in the clear, and he stops to pick up the kid's doll. Then he is surprised when the blast door close again and says "no, no, no" and starts to run back to the control room - he has misjudged the situation and forgot about the baddie Safin who has closed the blast doors.
As he gets to the garden area he is running across the pond and Safin appears out of nowhere and shoots Bond 3 times. Bond has "taken his eye off the ball" and has been shot just when he has no time to spare. Bond fights with Safin, breaks Safin's arm but has a vial containing DNA nano bots smashed into his face cutting and infecting him. Again, he misjudged the danger from Safin and the time taken to fight Safin is going to cost him his life. He shoots and kills Safin. Because he has misjudged the situation he is running out of time and cannot walk properly, let alone run for safety.
He opens the blast doors and then asks Q about the nano bots in his system. Q says don't worry about them, just get off the island. Q then realises that Bond is infected in a way that means he can't touch Madeleine or Mathilde again. Bond says "It's alright Q, it's alright" as he starts to climb the ladder to the top of the base. He talks to Madeleine on the radio as he climbs and admits that he is not going to make it. Bond gets to the top of the base. Missiles rain down and Bond is blown to bits.
Because Bond misjudged the situation, Safin was able to re-close the blast doors, delay Bond, shoot him, infect him, and that all led to Bond's death. Bond wouldn't have died except he ran out of time - and that was all due to Safin. Or rather, Bond misjudging the danger Safin posed.
Yes, he did. Very true. I guess if he hadn't have been infected with the nano bots and hadn't have been shot and delayed he would have escaped the island safely and would have given up being a spy and lived happily with Madeleine and Mathilde.
Could they have ended it like that - the story ending with Bond now a happy family man? It is one option.
Is killing him any better?
I guess the difference is if Bond becomes a family man he hasn't lost - he's gained.
When you kill him, he's the loser.
But that's just my take on it. Lots of people have lots of opinions about this one. This might end up being the most talked about Bond movie ever.
LOL. And i've still got 3 more weeks to go. I'll never make it..
So having kids is now considered "woke"? LOL
Basically we've now devolved into "anything I don't like is woke".
You are being very naughty and taking my comment out of context.
For normal people, no, having kids is not woke. But James Bond having a kid is woke.
I've been very good and not even mentioned anything about this film having a black, female 007 or a gay "Q"
"DNA nanobots" is about everything I need to know about this film to not like it. They are trying to be Marvel again, that already failed the last time with invisible cars and other bullshit. If I want to see over the top technology is magic kind of stuff I got to Marvel. They have perfected that formula for now.
Yeah - the invisible car was a bit much.
I usually enjoy a silly Bond escapist outing when they come out every 3 or so years but a few of the films have gone to far for me:
-"Moonraker": Bond as a space spy? Silly.
- "You Only Live Twice": Bond disguised as a Japanese man? Really silly.
- "On Her Majesty's Secret Service": George Lazenby trying to act? Really,really silly.
On Her Majestys is still better than the most Bond films after '75 imo. Silly? what about kitesurfing down a CG wave?
The contemporary run doesn't interest me but i'm sure there are good films in there. They are arguably better films but they don't have that breezy with the consequences, sense of danger with a smirk, campy..tongue-in-cheek wryness of the OGs.
A lot of Bond fans rate OHMSS as the best Bond movie. I just can't get past George as Bond.