The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[katied]

Daniel Craig isn't the Antichrist...just not living up to expectations is all.

Bond fans can be fickle(understatement of the frigging decade.Ha!)..Just look at the collective "Oh no EON didn't!" reaction when the name of Bond 22 was revealed.

[Kristatos]

Sean Connery is to God as Daniel Craig is to The Devil Himself.

Well, Daniel Craig is playing the Devil in I, Lucifer. Has Sean Connery ever played God? If not, he should. It'd be a great piece of casting.

[katied]

God with an Ediburgh acccent? It jusht might work

[stockslivevan]

Jesus: "Dad, these people are unfair to me, what should I do?"
GOD: "Shon, you should jusht shpread love like I did in my time."
Jesus: "Well I did, but these people keep coming to attack me with weapons like stones."
God: "You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He shends one of yoursh to the hoshpital, you shend one of hish to the-"
Jesus: "Dad I don't understand what you are talking about, what are you trying to tell me?"
God: "YOU'RE THE MAN NOW DOG!"

[carl stromberg]

One final question, will any of the members who are against Daniel Craig have any faith in EON again after he's vacated the role? In some cases it seems that DC is the problem, in some it's EON and in others it appears to be both
I guess the question/s is, or are what will get you back on the Bondwagon? And how long can you hold out for, before you just give up on Bond for good?

Unlike lots of other people, I actually liked the last three Brosnan Bonds. Unfortunately Barbara insisted on casting her close friend as Bond who is completely unsuitable.

If they ever make a Bond film without Daniel Craig as Bond, then I'll break out the champagne.....

[Captain Nash]

Thanks for giving a straightforward answer Carl.
I respect your opinion, and I guess the last three Bonds weren't as bad as they're often made out to be. Though none of them were really my cup of tea, TWINE did show some potential to be a great Bond film. Possibly Brosnans best imo. Better than DAD and TND.
Glad to see you'll return to the fold when Craig leaves. But when will that be?
And who'll fill his shoes? We could have a role reversal. Especially if they cast Henry Cavill.

[bjmdds]

I would quickly get back on the Bond wagon without Craig, provided they do not cast another DC type in the role. Cavill is too young to replace Craig in the role, unless Eon re-re-boots the franchise again, which would be utter nonsense. I fail to see where Eon takes the next Bond though. Back to the future, with Bond the experienced agent, or continue with him on his current path as if films 1-20 did not exist?

[James1090]

I would quickly get back on the Bond wagon without Craig, provided they do not cast another DC type in the role. Cavill is too young to replace Craig in the role, unless Eon re-re-boots the franchise again, which would be utter nonsense. I fail to see where Eon takes the next Bond though. Back to the future, with Bond the experienced agent, or continue with him on his current path as if films 1-20 did not exist?

I was wondering this my self. Especially if Craig's bond films are all sequels to eachother how do you have a different person continue that story line, it will be confusing.

[bjmdds]

Maybe that is why MGW said he needs a long rest after action packed The Bourne Mimicry. Could he hope people do not care about the product content but only the brand name and anything will sell?

[katied]

Sorry,but Cavill is too young-and still will be even when it comes time to find a new Bond.


Brosnan's movies are a matter of personal taste.I'll just say that


EON *did* know what they were doing at one point.Then they royally messed things up with Dud Another Day(ain't that the truth!)It looks like they're drifting again with QOS.

[English Agent]

As we are back on the topic of Craigs successor......

If Craig is say just in the Bond series for another 1 or 2 Bonds..............what do you people here think to
Gerald Butler as 007.

AB

[katied]

Butler is a better suggestion than some I've heard(Cavill..)

[Kristatos]

I was wondering this my self. Especially if Craig's bond films are all sequels to eachother how do you have a different person continue that story line, it will be confusing.

That's why I think the whole reboot thing was a mistake. CR should have been a stand-alone prequel if they insisted on jumping on the origin story bandwagon, with lines about the Cold War and 9/11 deleted to make it as non-time-specific as possible.

[stockslivevan]

From what I read, after QOS the Bond films would go back to being stand-alone so there aren't going to be such issues as "will the next actor continue with the storyline" such and such. It will be no different than the same kind of casting they did before Craig by just simply casting someone around the mid 30s to early 40s range. It never hurt. Besides, mentioning the Cold War and 9/11 in CR aren't going to do much damage. You couldn't convince anyone that Brosnan's Bond was in the service in the 60s. How do you solve that kind of problem? You do what the other films did: Ignore it. The only reason why there was a reboot in the first place was to show Bond's beginning in CR and QOS and start at a clean slate, an opportunity that wouldn't work if you tried doing a prequel in between "present" films. So they pretty much went for a "start fresh, do something interesting with the beginnings premise it and move on from there".

I always thought of every Bond having their own "version" of a backround. Roger Moore was the same age as Connery so you could say they both had the exact same history in time, only different personality traits. Then Dalton came and he obviously wouldn't have fought Dr. No in 1962, so you think maybe in the late 70s or early 80s. Brosnan obviously became a OO-Agent in the mid 80s just to give him a Cold War backround. I think that's what they'll do after Craig's Bond: Ignore the exact past yet give a sense of having a backround, like they did with Dalton when mentioning "he was married, but that was a long time ago".

[bjmdds]

Butler is a better suggestion than some I've heard(Cavill..)

Butler would have been a good choice for CR. Bondish look, rugged, tall, but obviously not what Broccoli desired.

[bjmdds]

I was wondering this my self. Especially if Craig's bond films are all sequels to eachother how do you have a different person continue that story line, it will be confusing.

That's why I think the whole reboot thing was a mistake. CR should have been a stand-alone prequel if they insisted on jumping on the origin story bandwagon, with lines about the Cold War and 9/11 deleted to make it as non-time-specific as possible.

A huge mistake for future storylines, but I now think Broccoli no longer cares about it for she feels anything will fly with moviegoers.

[katied]

A huge mistake for future storylines, but I now think Broccoli no longer cares about it for she feels anything will fly with moviegoers.

A-freaking men.

[stockslivevan]

I take it no one read my post?

[carl stromberg]

Butler is a better suggestion than some I've heard(Cavill..)

Butler would have been a good choice for CR. Bondish look, rugged, tall, but obviously not what Broccoli desired.

Barbara had lots of actors to pick for for Bond. Instead she drew up a shortlist that included Ewan Stewart, Daniel Craig and John Major.

[carl stromberg]

From what I read, after QOS the Bond films would go back to being stand-alone so there aren't going to be such issues as "will the next actor continue with the storyline" such and such. It will be no different than the same kind of casting they did before Craig by just simply casting someone around the mid 30s to early 40s range. It never hurt. Besides, mentioning the Cold War and 9/11 in CR aren't going to do much damage. You couldn't convince anyone that Brosnan's Bond was in the service in the 60s. How do you solve that kind of problem? You do what the other films did: Ignore it. The only reason why there was a reboot in the first place was to show Bond's beginning in CR and QOS and start at a clean slate, an opportunity that wouldn't work if you tried doing a prequel in between "present" films. So they pretty much went for a "start fresh, do something interesting with the beginnings premise it and move on from there".

I always thought of every Bond having their own "version" of a backround. Roger Moore was the same age as Connery so you could say they both had the exact same history in time, only different personality traits. Then Dalton came and he obviously wouldn't have fought Dr. No in 1962, so you think maybe in the late 70s or early 80s. Brosnan obviously became a OO-Agent in the mid 80s just to give him a Cold War backround. I think that's what they'll do after Craig's Bond: Ignore the exact past yet give a sense of having a backround, like they did with Dalton when mentioning "he was married, but that was a long time ago".

For me, CR (2006) was not a convincing depiction of Bond's beginning. Maybe if Craig's Bond's are "standalone" with lots of action, those who queried the young Bond element with Craig will be a bit happier.

Maybe they should hire someone who looks like Bond too.