bjmdds wrote:She is definitely "Alicia Silverstone Clueless" about Bond, that is for sure.
Absolutely! And has been for a while.


bjmdds wrote:She is definitely "Alicia Silverstone Clueless" about Bond, that is for sure.
I believe most of the actors in the Star Trek movie are in their 20's/early -mid 30's (Simon Pegg is 39 but could pass for 34bjmdds wrote:Star Trek should top Wolverine's $85 million, but will it top the $100 million mark with a TRUE prequel with actors who actually look younger than those before them, unlike Craig who looks older than those that came before him? Jackman should be Bond now.
Star Trek is poorly cast as a "Prequel" yet CR was properly cast as a "Prequel"? Are you kidding? Cavill was mentioned as a potential future Bond down the road or as a true prequel Bond, not as a current, distinguished, experienced Bond. By the way, what's the deal with James "SIBERIUS" Kirk in this new film?stockslivevan wrote:Someone mention Trek?
Frankly it's poorly cast. An underwear model as CAPTAIN JAMES T KIRK? Right. Kirk is supposed to be a man, not surprised you guys approve given how some here think Cavill is ideal as Bond.![]()
Kirk
There's NO amount of money to transform Craig into a proper Bond.katied wrote:They could do a Six Million Dollar Man on Daniel Craig. "We can rebuild him.We have the capability".![]()
![]()
bjmdds wrote:There's NO amount of money to transform Craig into a proper Bond.katied wrote:They could do a Six Million Dollar Man on Daniel Craig. "We can rebuild him.We have the capability".![]()
![]()
Vulcans do not kid, BJ.bjmdds wrote:Star Trek is poorly cast as a "Prequel" yet CR was properly cast as a "Prequel"? Are you kidding?
Judging by the overwhelming critical and commercial success of CR, and the subsequent knock-on effect with the opening weekends worldwide of QoS, I'd say Campbell and Broccoli got it spot on with everything to do with CR, including the casting. Facts, BJ, just the facts. Spin it any way you want to, but CR was a success.bjmdds wrote:Your theory of poor casting will be blown out of the water this weekend Stocks. It is a properly done reboot and the director J. J. got it right vs. Campbell and Broccoli's lame attempt at their so-called 8 minute bathroom prequel segment. By the way, CRAIG was the worst thing to ever happen to the Bond franchise.
Kind of like how yours was about CR huh? Oh of course, that has to be an exception for you. Frankly, I don't care. This new movie is made for the masses so of course it'll make money.bjmdds wrote:Your theory of poor casting will be blown out of the water this weekend Stocks.
So you think Star Trek should have always been like that? Christ. As a lontime Trek fan, I'll tell ya, this is the wrong direction for Star Trek.It is a properly done reboot and the director J. J. got it right
You're catching on BJ.By the way, Moore was the worst thing to ever happen to the Bond franchise.
I don't think I could tolerate ANY actor for that longDo you think he could be tolerated for 7 films over 12 years?
stockslivevan wrote:Someone mention Trek?
Frankly it's poorly cast. An underwear model as CAPTAIN JAMES T KIRK? Right. Kirk is supposed to be a man, not surprised you guys approve given how some here think Cavill is ideal as Bond.![]()
Kirk