The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[The Sweeney]

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.

Like Kris said, if BO figures were relevant to sacking actors, then surely Moore would have been given the boot after TMWTGG.

Cubby had a weakness in sticking with Moore too long. He really should have gone after MR, but Cubby being the guy he is, remained loyal, and stuck by him, regardless of whether it was good for the franchise or not.

His daughter looks to have more common sense, and balls!! Anyone could see that Brosnan was starting to look old by DAD, and when compared to the more athletic, fit-looking types around at the time in similar movies, like Damon and Bale, Brosnan didn't quite cut it like he used to.

So made perfect sense to me in axing Brosnan (not to mention the film itself being the worst thing ever committed to celluloid.)

[The Sweeney]

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

Yes, he did look like him. However, he had none of the natural charisma and swagger that Connery exuded. Lazenby just came across as wooden, a robot awaiting the next instruction from Hunt.

[English Agent]

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

Yes, he did look like him. However, he had none of the natural charisma and swagger that Connery exuded. Lazenby just came across as wooden, a robot awaiting the next instruction from Hunt.

Yes.........Lazenby was wooden in some scenes............but he wasnt an actor as such at the time, and in some scenes i thought he was very good,
and it makes you wonder how good he could of become as Bond in subsequent films with the acting experience he would of naturally gained.
Physically he fitted the role of Bond well.

It was a great shame in the circumstances that he left the Bond role, and announcing that he was quitting the role before OHMSS had even premiered, obviously did the film some harm at the BO.

Unfortunately for OHMSS, the critics and public at the time overlooked the film to some extent by focusing on Lazenbys reported antics on the set.....and seemed to apparently at the time, were still missing Connery in the role.

Over time though.........OHMSS has been seen to be the excellent Bond film that it is by fans!!

Another abnomaly attached to the film was that it was a BO failure........but this was far from the truth, and was in fact quite a success.
I put this down to the fact that OHMSS wasnt quite in the league of GF, TB and YOLT during Bondmania of the mid-sixties, and the focus on Lazenby.
In reality OHMSS was a very profitable film, and ended up the second biggest hit worldwide during its run in 1970.

AB

[English Agent]

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.

An interesting point 'Kris'.

Another abnomally..............Yes TMWTGG didn't do particularly well at the BO in the US or Internatinally, compared to its predecessor...........i think around $97 mil gross total off the top of my head..........but then again the film only cost around $7 mil to make.

Another point to take into account, is that even though Brosnans films made a lot of money, they also cost a bleedin fortune to make, and their
outright profit margins were much smaller in percentage terms to earlier Bond films, such as during the Connery and Moore eras.
In fact Moores films did much better business than most people think, and this is probably one of the reasons why Cubby kept him on in the role.

AB

[English Agent]

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.

Just jesting 'kris'.........its whats known as an english dry sense of humour!

[stockslivevan]

YET, Brosnan was replaced after the most successful grossing Bond film in history Something just does not add up.

And it looks like it paid off, since Craig's film surpassed every film Brosnan did, and he was considered popular. That says a lot doesn't it? And no BJ, films don't make over half a billion dollars by curiosity alone.

[carl stromberg]

I think Lazenby's casting shows the imoprtance placed pre-Craig on casting an actor who looked the part.

[bjmdds]

YET, Brosnan was replaced after the most successful grossing Bond film in history Something just does not add up.

And it looks like it paid off, since Craig's film surpassed every film Brosnan did, and he was considered popular. That says a lot doesn't it? And no BJ, films don't make over half a billion dollars by curiosity alone.

Maybe half was curiosity though. Round 2 is the true test. I am curious to see how the 'original script' is received in plot interest also.

[stockslivevan]

YET, Brosnan was replaced after the most successful grossing Bond film in history Something just does not add up.

And it looks like it paid off, since Craig's film surpassed every film Brosnan did, and he was considered popular. That says a lot doesn't it? And no BJ, films don't make over half a billion dollars by curiosity alone.

Maybe half was curiosity though. Round 2 is the true test. I am curious to see how the 'original script' is received in plot interest also.

With only a vocal minority having a problem with Craig, I wouldn't be too worried about the success of QOS.

[stockslivevan]

I think Lazenby's casting shows the imoprtance placed pre-Craig on casting an actor who looked the part.

Well they certainly didn't place that importance while casting Roger Moore, because he certainly doesn't resemble Connery.

[bjmdds]

http://www.chillertheatre.com/gt/gtc4.htm I see JAWS makes his first Chiller Theatre appearance near me in May in New Jersey in the USA. If I can get close to him, I will ask him his take on Daniel Craig as James Bond and the direction Eon has taken with the franchise. Do not worry Sweeney, I won't tell him you dislike OTT space related action-adventure Bond films.

[Kristatos]

Do not worry Sweeney, I won't tell him you dislike OTT space related action-adventure Bond films.

Actually, I've heard Richard Kiel is a thoroughly nice bloke in real life, so I doubt Sweeney would have much to fear if you did.

[bjmdds]

Unless the Sweenster is standing right in front of him.

[carl stromberg]

S. by someone "who looks the part" I meant someone who looks like James Bond, (IMO of course!). Wheras it was a consensus opinion amongst Bond fans that Craig was a good choice because he could be closer to Fleming's Bond even though he didn't look like him.

[English Agent]

S. by someone "who looks the part" I meant someone who looks like James Bond, (IMO of course!). Wheras it was a consensus opinion amongst Bond fans that Craig was a good choice because he could be closer to Fleming's Bond even though he didn't look like him.

I dont think 'Sweeney' would be frightened of Jaws, i mean the guy must be quite old now (Jaws that is!).

I'am sure that by the viewing of QOS that may of you doubters who dont like DC will probably be enjoying his Bond films!

I mean by the middle of the next decade if you are still alive, you might find at least one of his films enjoyable.

I mean, i'am so confident that QOS will be a crackingly good film...........that if it does turn out to be a turkey........then i will personally embalm myself.

Run away AB before they thump you!

[stockslivevan]

S. by someone "who looks the part" I meant someone who looks like James Bond, (IMO of course!). Wheras it was a consensus opinion amongst Bond fans that Craig was a good choice because he could be closer to Fleming's Bond even though he didn't look like him.

I think Craig looks like Flemings Bond. Handsome with blue eyes and a cruel mouth. The only thing Craig's missing is a scar and black hair.

[English Agent]

Everyones been over DC's looks a zillion times over the last year or so.....
(Its not as though he's got a face like Godzilla's ass!).
We know what people think on both sides...............until there's a change of actor in the future, lets concentrate on the real matter in hand.........

i.e the quality of the current Bond films!!

AB

[Captain Nash]

YET, Brosnan was replaced after the most successful grossing Bond film in history Something just does not add up.

And it looks like it paid off, since Craig's film surpassed every film Brosnan did, and he was considered popular. That says a lot doesn't it? And no BJ, films don't make over half a billion dollars by curiosity alone.

Maybe half was curiosity though. Round 2 is the true test. I am curious to see how the 'original script' is received in plot interest also.

So if QOS is the true test, what was all the hassle over CR by the anti-Craig fans ?
A build up of things to come?
If QOS is the true test then how did Roger Moore get another shot after TMWTGG?
Obviously we'll see, though what the 'true test' is is anyones guess.
What is the test bj?

[stockslivevan]

If QOS is successful, I'm ready for BJ's reaction. I can see him saying something like "that was only Craig's second, let's see if he can keep up that lasting appeal like his predecessors then we'll truly know whether everyone likes his Bond or not"

And then so on and so on.

By the end of Craig's fifth successful Bond film, he's finished with Bond and moves on. BJ will then write a summary of his tenure consisting of "the truth is, the public never cared for Craig, they just wanted to see a Bond film. He was never popular. If you had Hugh Jackman in the role from 2006-2014, he would have been more popular than Craig and the movies would have made more money."

"The public never liked Craig, don't use IMDb as an example! Internet doesn't count"
"Critics only liked Craig because everyone hated him, and they always praise what isn't popular!"

[Captain Nash]

Your above post is almost uncanny Stocks.