The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

Post by **English Agent** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:36 pm

James wrote:Anyone heard the Al Pacino rumour? It must be cobblers.

I agree 'James'.......its cobblers!!

Post by **James** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:39 pm

Has it been debunked on MI6? I haven't really been keeping track of all the rumours and confirmed news.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:52 pm

James wrote: Was it more Brosnan or the films? With me it's more Craig than anything.

It was more the films than Brosnan himself. I would still despise DAD if it had Craig in it.

James wrote:
I like your new signature Sweeney.

Thanks James.

Post by **English Agent** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:07 pm

bjmdds wrote:
James wrote:
Arthur Brain wrote: The fact is that most people on Bond websites realise that he stared in poor quality Bond films...............i mean TWINE & DAD were very poor,
that doesn't mean fans hated PB.

The World Is Not Enough isn't a bad film. If it was playing on one channel and Casino Royale was on the other, I'd watch TWINE.

The sooner people realise this fact the better
That's a subjective view, not a fact.
Arthur,why did you feel that TWINE was so poor? It had a good villain, with a bullet in his head, a pretty and evil lead Bond villainess, M had a decent role, and Brosnan was a credible Bond. The only problem for me was Richards' role.

OK............maybe poor is the wrong word, but i felt that TWINE was ininspired and dull.
As you have pointed out there were some good performances from the actors.........though 'Richards' was dismal.
I felt that the film was a mixture of styles i.e a mixture of the high action content of TND and the stronger dialogue themes of GE.
The action sequences as someone has mentioned here before seemed to of been tacked on in between the dialogue scenes with not a great deal of relevance, such as when Bond and Electra were at the pipeline, at the end of that scene we suddenly see them skiing (which was a good action piece), but it didn't seem to tie in with the story.
Basically, its one of those films that once you see it, it is easily forgotten.
It didn't leave any lasting positive impression with me, and i only saw the film once at the cinema!

AB

Post by **The Sweeney** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:29 pm

bjmdds wrote:How are we coping? As you did Sweenster, by 'hoping with each new release, Eon would get their act together', by realizing Craig as Bond is a fleeting fad. Were you pulled into the theatres between 1995-2002 kicking and screaming? Were you lost in the wilderness for 17 years???? We here, have endured Craig for only 1 going on 2 films. Perhaps his tenure will be more Daltonian or Lazenbyish than Connery, Moore or Brosnan. Then we can all return from the wilderness, back to civilization, with a proper(HOPEFULLY) Bond in place.

My time in the wilderness was much worse than yours. If you end up with QOS being a film you enjoy despite the actor, that is much better than getting a film you hate, despite the actor, which is what I suffered during the Brosnan years.

I could live with a brilliant Bond film and a crap Bond (OHMSS), but it is very difficult living with a crap Bond film, regardless of who is playing Bond.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:05 am

The Sweeney wrote:
bjmdds wrote:How are we coping? As you did Sweenster, by 'hoping with each new release, Eon would get their act together', by realizing Craig as Bond is a fleeting fad. Were you pulled into the theatres between 1995-2002 kicking and screaming? Were you lost in the wilderness for 17 years???? We here, have endured Craig for only 1 going on 2 films. Perhaps his tenure will be more Daltonian or Lazenbyish than Connery, Moore or Brosnan. Then we can all return from the wilderness, back to civilization, with a proper(HOPEFULLY) Bond in place.
My time in the wilderness was much worse than yours. If you end up with QOS being a film you enjoy despite the actor, that is much better than getting a film you hate, despite the actor, which is what I suffered during the Brosnan years.

I could live with a brilliant Bond film and a crap Bond (OHMSS), but it is very difficult living with a crap Bond film, regardless of who is playing Bond.

Agreed. OHMSS has a weak lead but the film is #2 on my Bond list. If it had Connery then it would soar at #1 IMO.

Post by **bjmdds** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:13 pm

It is a shame that Connery did not do OHMSS and instead did DAF. That was one of Eon's greatest mistakes and it was mostly over contractual problems. Did Connery ever regret not doing it? Imagine that phone call, after Lazenby's folly at the box office, to Connery? It made NO sense to skip that film, none.

Post by **English Agent** » Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:36 pm

bjmdds wrote:It is a shame that Connery did not do OHMSS and instead did DAF. That was one of Eon's greatest mistakes and it was mostly over contractual problems. Did Connery ever regret not doing it? Imagine that phone call, after Lazenby's folly at the box office, to Connery? It made NO sense to skip that film, none.

I agree 'BJ' it was a shame that Connery didn't do OHMSS then retire from the role, but after YOLT he was really fed up with the media frenzy and the direction in which the films were going.............it makes one wonder if he had known how the production of OHMSS was going to be, whether he would of done that film............netherless Lazenby did a credible job in OHMSS, and its a great shame he didn't go on to do more Bonds.
From what i've read, he was prepared to do more, but he had an absolute twit of a manager who persuaded him that he didn't need to do any Bonds.

On the matter of the Bourne films.............i saw the trilogy at the weekend, and thought they were terrific films............I will agree that those films, promted to some extent EON to make Bond more realistic........but i dont they they are copies as Bond is still essentially a 60's spy franchise updated for the 21st century audience, while Bourne is a modern day assasin trying to find his roots.

AB

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:04 am

OHMSS is a fuzzy topic. While I want Connery, I would have wanted a Connery in his prime (DN-TB). Even if he stayed for OHMSS it might have taken something else for him to put in the effort. Connery always seemed like the guy who would give his best to directors he likes while for others he wouldn't really try.

He's not a professional kind of actor, but when he goes for it he's good. So if you had Terence Young directing OHMSS, Connery probably would have pulled a far better performance, especially since the film is more emotional, something new for Connery to take with Bond instead of the boring material he was given for YOLT.

Post by **bjmdds** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:39 am

The crazy part is that OHMSS never got it's credit due to Lazenby replacing an iconic Connery in the role. Plus, the lack of recognition of Bond/Blofeld annoyed plenty especially after YOLT. Connery should have closed out his run with his arms around Diana Rigg in the car. Then Lazenby or Moore could have taken over in DAF.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:15 am

bjmdds wrote:The crazy part is that OHMSS never got it's credit due to Lazenby replacing an iconic Connery in the role. Plus, the lack of recognition of Bond/Blofeld annoyed plenty especially after YOLT. Connery should have closed out his run with his arms around Diana Rigg in the car. Then Lazenby or Moore could have taken over in DAF.

I think OHMSS was better off ignoring YOLT entirely (if you notice besides the titles, YOLT never gets mentioned). The introduction of Blofeld was one of the weak aspects of the film's short comings. "GOOD BYEE MEE-STAH BOND!" after four good villains the most anticipating is the most disappointing. Telly Savalas Blofeld was an improvement. Intimidating, charming and ruthless, exactly what a Bond villain should be. I doubt that OHMSS not acknowledging events in YOLT was one of the reasons it did bad. If that's true, why can't that apply to the films after? Especially once Dalton and Brosnan got on board being to young to be married in 1969 when they were no older than a college graduate. Besides, YOLT should have been made after OHMSS. If any film is at fault for screwing up continuity, it's YOLT ignoring its source. If they made OHMSS first then made YOLT there wouldn't have been a tampered timeline and the series wouldn't have that unresolved Blofeld storyline.

Post by **Kristatos** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 1:26 pm

stockslivevan wrote:If they made OHMSS first then made YOLT there wouldn't have been a tampered timeline and the series wouldn't have that unresolved Blofeld storyline.

A tampered timeline that we're still discussing nearly 40 years later. You'd have thought EON would have learned their lesson, but....

Post by **The Sweeney** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:15 pm

Kristatos wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:If they made OHMSS first then made YOLT there wouldn't have been a tampered timeline and the series wouldn't have that unresolved Blofeld storyline.
A tampered timeline that we're still discussing nearly 40 years later. You'd have thought EON would have learned their lesson, but....

A tampered timeline which didn't affect the franchise success whatsoever in the long run.

Looks like there was no lesson to be learned....

Post by **Skywalker** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:34 pm

The Sweeney wrote:
Kristatos wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:If they made OHMSS first then made YOLT there wouldn't have been a tampered timeline and the series wouldn't have that unresolved Blofeld storyline.
A tampered timeline that we're still discussing nearly 40 years later. You'd have thought EON would have learned their lesson, but....
A tampered timeline which didn't affect the franchise success whatsoever in the long run.

Looks like there was no lesson to be learned....

It has no bearing to the general Bond fan, but it does irritate me and I guess a few others.

Post by **English Agent** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:27 pm

Skywalker wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:
Kristatos wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:If they made OHMSS first then made YOLT there wouldn't have been a tampered timeline and the series wouldn't have that unresolved Blofeld storyline.
A tampered timeline that we're still discussing nearly 40 years later. You'd have thought EON would have learned their lesson, but....
A tampered timeline which didn't affect the franchise success whatsoever in the long run.

Looks like there was no lesson to be learned....
It has no bearing to the general Bond fan, but it does irritate me and I guess a few others.

True.............a tampered timeline...........therefore why i some of you guys making a big deal of Bond now when it has been accepted by the
MAJORITY of people.

Blimey..............if i have to read anymore negative comments.......then i might have to stick my head in the oven!!

AB

Post by **Kristatos** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:40 pm

Arthur Brain wrote:Blimey..............if i have to read anymore negative comments.......then i might have to stick my head in the oven!!

I'm shocked and astounded that a forum called DanielCraigIsNotBond.com would feature "negative comments". If you want to read 24/7 Craig butt-kissing, there are plenty of other Bond forums that feature nothing else, you know.

Post by **bjmdds** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:43 pm

Kristatos wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:If they made OHMSS first then made YOLT there wouldn't have been a tampered timeline and the series wouldn't have that unresolved Blofeld storyline.
A tampered timeline that we're still discussing nearly 40 years later. You'd have thought EON would have learned their lesson, but....

You have to wonder what the heck Broccoli and Saltzman were thinking in 1967-1969. If Stocks idea was realized, and OHMSS was made prior to YOLT, that would have made proper sense. Then of course, you get Gray with a full head of hair as Blofeld in DAF after seeing him bald for two films. It could be the lack of caring by Eon in regards to proper timeline does in fact go back to them getting away with it in 1967-1969. It would have been great seeing Connery do 1-6, then turn it over to Lazenby and allow him to find his own fan niche, or else straight to Moore.

Post by **bjmdds** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:47 pm

The Sweeney wrote:
Kristatos wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:If they made OHMSS first then made YOLT there wouldn't have been a tampered timeline and the series wouldn't have that unresolved Blofeld storyline.
A tampered timeline that we're still discussing nearly 40 years later. You'd have thought EON would have learned their lesson, but....
A tampered timeline which didn't affect the franchise success whatsoever in the long run.

Looks like there was no lesson to be learned....

That is the arrogance of Eon to their fans though. They do what they want for people keep coming back, and once they don't, a new Bond is in the wings. Lazenby and Dalton tanked at the box office and were quickly replaced, YET, Brosnan was replaced after the most successful grossing Bond film in history

Something just does not add up.

Post by **bjmdds** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:03 pm

Question. How many think Lazenby was a pretty close look alike to Connery, in physical appearance only?

Post by **Kristatos** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:11 pm

bjmdds wrote:Lazenby and Dalton tanked at the box office and were quickly replaced

No, Lazenby quit and Cubby wanted Dalton back for Goldeneye, but either Dalton said no or MGM/UA overruled him, depending on which version of the story you believe. If tanking at the box office was grounds for replacement, then Roger Moore would have been out after TMWTGG.