Kristatos wrote:LOL. I can't believe you actually thought he was serious.
The laughs are all on Fat Seagal.

That's just the idea to make DC's Bond era look bad.I suppose you think he really wants Kenny G to do a Bond theme as well?
Kristatos wrote:LOL. I can't believe you actually thought he was serious.
That's just the idea to make DC's Bond era look bad.I suppose you think he really wants Kenny G to do a Bond theme as well?
Yes, and I think it's kind of fun that FBF uses silliness, exaggeration, and absurdity to make his overall point regarding the Bond franchise.Kristatos wrote:LOL. I can't believe you actually thought he was serious. I suppose you think he really wants Kenny G to do a Bond theme as well?Captain Nash wrote: I'm a little worried with this idea. Clearly you haven't thought it through bj.
Afterall, FBF would cast Steven Seagal as Bond.Is that what you want?
![]()
I'd rather see The Hobbit than another "Bond film" like QOS, especially now that it looks like Peter Jackson is going to be directing. If I thought that EON had learned anything from the (artistic) failure of QOS, my attitude might be different, but I can't see anything that suggests they have.Captain Nash wrote:He'd rather see The Hobbit over a Bond filmNo Bond fan would ever think that way.
That's the trouble with the internet. It's hard to know when someone is being serious or not. You've taken my post to literally Kris.Kristatos wrote:LOL. I can't believe you actually thought he was serious. I suppose you think he really wants Kenny G to do a Bond theme as well?Captain Nash wrote: I'm a little worried with this idea. Clearly you haven't thought it through bj.
Afterall, FBF would cast Steven Seagal as Bond.Is that what you want?
![]()
What about an actor called Roger Moore. I'd argue that he was the most beloved and accepted after Connery.Bond # 7 wrote:Brosnan was the most beloved and widely accepted Bond since Sean Connery look what happened to him.
I've been hearing that for five years.Bond # 7 wrote:Craig's turn is coming up soon.The Non-Bond era will be over soon!
An excellent post Bond 77, and one I wish more members here would recognise. I wasn't saying that Pierce Brosnan was the reason for his films being of a poorer quality, but as you've pointed out. With silly characters, poor casting choices, and over the top story lines.Bond77 wrote:Oh Captain Nash. Common sense would tell you that Brosnan was more than sufficient with his portrayal as Bond and it was silly scripts (Die Another Day), and lousy characters (examples: Christmas Jones, Eliot Carver) that plagued the Brosnan era. That is, if the Brosnan era is to labeled "plagued".Captain Nash wrote:And we as loyal fans deserved better than some of the films his contribution gave us.Bond77 wrote:And five years ago Brosnan was dumped like a worn out shoe. He deserved better for what he did to reinvigorate the franchise.007 wrote:We had a black flag flying all day at DCINB headquarters.Captain Nash wrote:Five years ago yesterday Daniel Craig was confirmed as the next James Bond.
Aside from GoldenEye, were his films really that good. Certainly not alot of TND, and nearly all of TWINE. DAD was entertaining, and probably his second best portrayal of the character.
I liked Pierce as Bond, and would've welcomed a fifth from him. But it wasn't to be. Let's be honest he was starting to look old in DAD, and with the injury he sustained during filming, could EON risk it two or three years down the track? With the possibility of the star out of action, it can cost a film millions for delays like that.
It's just common sense.
At the risk of digression, I must say that this brings me to what I don't get about criticism against Roger Moore. As if Roger Moore coordinated the "slide whistle" stunt sequence in The Man with the Golden Gun, created the Jaws character, or wrote the Moonraker script. Roger did nothing more than work with the materials given to him. Besides, Roger Moore showed that he was more than capable of playing a straight, heroic role in The Saint. It was the producers and the creative team of EON that made Bond silly in the 70's and 80's...
...which brings make to the Brosnan era. If the Brosnan era is to labeled "plagued", "silly", or what have you then the blame should be directed at Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson. They captain the Bond ship, and there are ultimately responsible for the direction of the franchise.
Now, the notion that Brosnan was beginning to look too old. I think he looked fine in his last outing as Bond, and he looked like he could have played the role as long as Moore had and it would have been fine. Besides, even if he was looking to old I'd rather have an "old looking Bond" then some one who has never looked or acted like James Bond.
It was Pierce who wanted the deadly seriousness the franchise needs.katied wrote:I'd rather have silliness like Former Bond Fan's than the deadly seriousness the franchise needs, according to some here.Just sayin'.
Sure it does. FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD....katied wrote:There's got to be a happy medium between the overly serious stuff and the Austin Powers stuff so many fans seem to want to return.Unfortunately I don't think it exists.
And I will. Btw, anyone here read any Tolkien's stories? I've read and own both The Hobbit and LOTR. I haven't read the others yet.bjmdds wrote:The Hobbit to be released December 2012 and December 2013. I know where FBF will be both months, in the theatres seeing Bilbo Baggins,
I read The Hobbit as a kid and have read LOTR more times than I can count. I have also read The Silmarillion and some of his non-legendarium stuff like Finn and Hengest, but have yet to tackle the 12-volume History of Middle Earth.FormerBondFan wrote:And I will. Btw, anyone here read any Tolkien's stories? I've read and own both The Hobbit and LOTR. I haven't read the others yet.bjmdds wrote:The Hobbit to be released December 2012 and December 2013. I know where FBF will be both months, in the theatres seeing Bilbo Baggins,