The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

Post by **Kristatos** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 9:07 pm

James wrote:I wouldn't mind someone taking over from David Arnold soon. I think he and Dench should have gone with Brosnan.

Personally, unless John Barry comes back, I'd rather Arnold stayed. He has taken the "Bond sound" and made it his own.

Post by **English Agent** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 1:23 pm

I'am sure you guys must know by now..........but if you didn't!!!

The initial teaser trailer for QOS is expected in cinemas in the UK and USA
on the 2nd July.

..........then we will get some inkling to how the new film will be!

AB

Post by **007** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:22 pm

Another AIC James Bond talkback. Some interesting posts, including the one I've printed below.

http://www.aintitcool.com/talkback_disp ... nt_1943060

All this talk about Casino Royale 'saving' the series makes me sick. First of all, it never needed saving - if the numbers were going down instead of up with every installment, maybe, but no. Secondly, I have been a lifetime fan of Bond because he is different than other heroes - BECAUSE he is cool, suave, unflappable, smooth beyond all belief in the worst of circumstances, not a lower-class brute-force asshole with a fugly boxer's face and a major chip on his shoulder. I don't need gritty Bond! Get this new "fans" - BOND. WAS. NEVER. GRITTY. Repeat that till it sinks in. He was always a fantasy. Go back to the first film, Dr. No - a megalomaniac with metal hands, a robot dinosaur and his own nuclear powered island. Yeah, really gritty, motherf****s! (And don't give me that same s**t about the books - have you read them? Still not gritty.) Bond is a fantasy. It's meant to be popcorn thrills and spills, not "real" or "psychologically dark". My first Bond in theatres was a double feature of OHMSS and YOLT. I was 7, appropriately. I loved them from the get-go. And the one thing I've learned over a lifetime of fanatical Bond-dom is whenever people talk about making Bond "human"...run for cover. It means a wet noodle like Dalton or a witless thug like Craig is playing Bond and trying to make him something he's not. I like the gadgets, the action that ends with him actually winning, the f**king around with as many women as possible, the glamor, the dry wit, the exotic, the bizarre, the absurd far-fetched plots. Here's a hint: if you don't like those things, you're...not...a...Bond...fan. You're somebody who wants a different kind of hero. Now I love the Bourne movies (first two, third sucks), but Bond is NOT that kind of spy. In the final analysis, as "fresh" as CR was - and there were some great ideas in there, not all of them completely ruined by Campbell or Craig - it just wasn't fun enough. I have watched it completely maybe 3 times, when I usually watch Bond films a minimum of a dozen times. That tells me everything I need to know. Let me be the one to say the emperor has no clothes... Craig is NOT Bond! He had a few good moments, but his overall classlessness and lack of humor/irony just ruins Bond as a character. Brosnan had that perfect Bond DNA. The movies were never quite as good as he deserved, but HE was Bond. If it doesn't have a twinkle in its eye or one eyebrow raised, then you're not watching Bond...you're watching a million mediocre action films with monosyllabic tough guy heroes. And if you just now think you like Bond because of CR - and not the 20 other films that came before - then...uh, find another series for yourself. It's like going to see Star Wars and complaining cuz it's not a Spaghetti Western. Leave my series alone! ...Breathing, breathing... Rant over.

Post by **Kristatos** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:38 pm

Arthur Brain wrote:I'am sure you guys must know by now..........but if you didn't!!!

The initial teaser trailer for QOS is expected in cinemas in the UK and USA
on the 4th July.

..........then we will get some inkling to how the new film will be!

AB

Not really. Teaser trailers are rarely an indication of anything much. They tend to follow the same pattern - Build up (who is this mysterious spy?), reveal, James Bond theme strikes up, montage of shots from the movie's action sequences quickly edited together, "Coming November 2008".

Post by **Kristatos** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:41 pm

007 wrote:Another AIC James Bond talkback. Some interesting posts, including the one I've printed below.

http://www.aintitcool.com/talkback_disp ... nt_1943060

My sentiments exactly, only with more swearing. I thought we had filters for that sort of thing - they seem to be very erratic. Personally, I think we should get rid of the filters altogether (we're all adults here AFAIK), but if you're going to have them, make sure they work. As Yoda might say "swear, or do not swear, there is no try".

Post by **carl stromberg** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:40 pm

Kristatos wrote:
007 wrote:Another AIC James Bond talkback. Some interesting posts, including the one I've printed below.

http://www.aintitcool.com/talkback_disp ... nt_1943060
My sentiments exactly, only with more swearing. I thought we had filters for that sort of thing - they seem to be very erratic. Personally, I think we should get rid of the filters altogether (we're all adults here AFAIK), but if you're going to have them, make sure they work. As Yoda might say "swear, or do not swear, there is no try".

007 PM'd me about the MotherF. plural which got through our word censors, and it is now in it. I'm tempted to put "Craig" in the word censor. Can anyone suggest the alternative phrase?

Post by **bjmdds** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:34 am

Glad to see CR did not end but rather intensified the debate. As it is often said in the Bondian Shakespearian vernacular, "To be Bond, or not to be Bond, that is Craig's question".

What about Green Planet and the natural resource that they want to control? Doesn't this storyline by Haggis entice all? Is it oil, uranium, etc., that is in this supposedly barren piece of land? Oh, the suspense, will Craig's Bond find out who the traitors are in Her Majesty's service and CIA in this film, or will they conclude it in Craig's trilogy arc, Bond 23, aka, The Ultimate Bourne Mimicry?

By the way, what is with the silhouette with Craig and the GI Joe machine gun? Even that trivial detail is foreign to Bond's past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_of_Solace

Post by **Kristatos** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:17 pm

bjmdds wrote:Doesn't this storyline by Haggis entice all? Is it oil, uranium, etc., that is in this supposedly barren piece of land?

Gemma Thingy already let slip that it was oil. I figured it probably would be (oil is very much in the news at the moment, after all). I pity poor Danny Kleinman having to try and think up new ways to work oil into the opening credits after he's already exhausted every conceivable visual oil metaphor in the title sequence of TWINE.

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:41 am

Oil? "Oil's well that ends well". So MAYBE this plot is to blow up all of the middle eastern oil wells and then Green Planet will have a monopoly on the world's oil, ala Goldfinger with his gold?

John Drake · Post by **John Drake** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:12 pm

007 wrote: Let me be the one to say the emperor has no clothes... Craig is NOT Bond! He had a few good moments, but his overall classlessness and lack of humor/irony just ruins Bond as a character.

I agree with the humour/irony point. There was a magazine cover recently with Daniel Craig on it over a headline that said 'The thinking man's Bond'. I find this strange because DC looks so gormless compared to the other Bond actors. The others had much more natural class.

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:26 pm

All part of Eon's promotional spin doctor budget. They cannot fool most here though.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:34 pm

Eon sure don't fool you bj do they?...or many of the members here.

Do you think they care about the members of a site that is against Craig as Bond?
As Craig IS Bond, and has been widely accepted by all but a few fanboys and Brosnan lovers, will there be another attempted boycott do you think?
The only prpblem with the last one for CR is that everyone saw it.

Which kind of goes against the idea of the boycott.

Is there anything about QOS that appeals to any of the members here?

Post by **007** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:42 pm

Captain Nash wrote: Is there anything about QOS that appeals to any of the members here?

I've heard it will be shorter than Casino Royale.

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:28 am

Fanboys? Brosnan lovers? I like Connery, Moore, and Brosnan, which totals 17 out of 21 films. By the way, what does this term I see so much of on MI6's site, FANBOYS, actually mean?

http://www.theinsideronline.com/news/2008/03/16378/ I find these so-called villains pretty lame for a Bond film, again with small physical statures to align with Craig's reduced frame. Shades of Sanchez's side kick.

John Drake · Post by **John Drake** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 5:02 pm

According to wikipedia:

Fanboy is a term used to describe an individual who is devoted to a single fannish subject, or to a single point of view within that subject, often to the point where it is considered an obsession. Fanboys remain loyal to their particular obsession.

Post by **bjmdds** » Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:58 pm

Come around more often Drake. You should post here more often.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:54 am

I'm shocked no one here has made a remark about the budget for QOS being a reported $230 million.
Whether or not this is true, or if it also includes the marketing costs is another matter.
But I thought some of you would be straight on that one.

Post by **English Agent** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:04 am

Captain Nash wrote:I'm shocked no one here has made a remark about the budget for QOS being a reported $230 million.
Whether or not this is true, or if it also includes the marketing costs is another matter.
But I thought some of you would be straight on that one.

Your right 'Nash'..............i thought about posting a thread on the subject
yesterday............but i thought it would open up a can of worms...........?

BUT now that it has been mentioned i will say this!!

Variety also stated that CR cost around $140 mil which sounds about right,
considering other sources were quoting between $122-150 mil.

I think that the $230 mil quoted for QOS also includes the marketing budget..............otherwise it would make QOS one of the most expensive films in movie history, and i doubt it would have millions of dollars worth of special effects like Spiderman 3.

Though it does show that MGM are very confident about the film, and the fact that they asked their shareholders to come up with half the money.

Maybe its all the extra action scenes which are making QOS expensive.

One other point, i keep reading that the actors keep saying we are going to be surprised by the events in QOS...........I wander what they mean??

................and i dont mean DC falling into a pulverising machine

AB

Post by **Kristatos** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:01 am

One should always take a studio's estimate of a movie budget with a pinch of salt. Studios like to artificially inflate a movie's budget because it sounds impressive.

Post by **bjmdds** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:15 pm

CR budget: Film= $150 million;marketing expenses=$120 million:total was $270 million. IF QOSTBM has a $230 million budget BEFORE marketing, you are looking at Superman Returns total production costs, and that would be a totally losing proposition.