The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[james stock]

I think this film has divided fans down the middle, i personally saw it as two fingered salute to previous 20 films and actors.

To say royale was the best bond film in 20 years and Craig the best bond EVER! is disrespectful to the previous actors and films who had to make something out of weak scripts. Craig tried to act bond the others were bond to me that was the difference.

Fill her up please!

[The Sweeney]

I've said it before and I'll go on saying it....

The Bourne films were more closer to Fleming in terms of gritty, realistic action set-pieces than the recent Brosnan films ever hoped to be. So this was a smart move to copy what was originally Fleming-like anyway, IMO.

I don't see much Fleming in the Bourne movies.

Fleming's novels were, just like the movie versions, also about fantastical plots, exotic locations, sexy women, supervillians, gadgets, and so on.

Bond himself was a little more realistic, he often got hurt, the violence was gritty, etc. But other than that I don't think Bond and Bourne have any similarities.

I'm bored discussing Bond/Bourne/Fleming yet again, but just as my final word on the subject.

The Bond window dressing (women, OTT villains, exotic locations) are not like Bourne. Neither is the sophisticated, tuxedo-wearing, English gentleman character either.

But the realistic action style is like Bourne. And there were no gadgets in the novels either. In the novels, Bond was often bloody, battered, tortured. He was often left for dead, filthy and torn, by mangrove swamps, poisonous gardens, beaches, tunnels, dark rooms, back-seats of cars, trains, etc. He also relied on his wits to escape situations. (he even used a Rolex watch as a knuckle duster in OHMSS - very Bourne-like). The books also centred around Bond himself. We were totally in Bond's world, Bond's perspective. Again, this is similar to the focal point of the Bourne films.

So it depends on what is important to you. Is it the `window dressing', or is it the way the action is portrayed. To me, it is the latter. To others, it isn't.

Simple really.

[bjmdds]

To "Craig's cult" who still do not believe the Bourne films were the muse for Eon's CR: http://www.askmen.com/toys/special_feat ... ature.html

I've said it before and I'll go on saying it....

The Bourne films were more closer to Fleming in terms of gritty, realistic action set-pieces than the recent Brosnan films ever hoped to be. So this was a smart move to copy what was originally Fleming-like anyway, IMO.

So Eon went with the flow of the Bourne gritty style and took credit for it as a reboot of the franchise? How original!

Nope. I agree. There was nothing original about the style of CR.

However, there was nothing remotely original about DAD either (or the previous Brosnan flicks).

At least we agree on this CR point Sweene'.

[bjmdds]

I've said it before and I'll go on saying it....

The Bourne films were more closer to Fleming in terms of gritty, realistic action set-pieces than the recent Brosnan films ever hoped to be. So this was a smart move to copy what was originally Fleming-like anyway, IMO.

I don't see much Fleming in the Bourne movies.

Fleming's novels were, just like the movie versions, also about fantastical plots, exotic locations, sexy women, supervillians, gadgets, and so on.

Bond himself was a little more realistic, he often got hurt, the violence was gritty, etc. But other than that I don't think Bond and Bourne have any similarities.

I'm bored discussing Bond/Bourne/Fleming yet again, but just as my final word on the subject.

The Bond window dressing (women, OTT villains, exotic locations) are not like Bourne. Neither is the sophisticated, tuxedo-wearing, English gentleman character either.

But the realistic action style is like Bourne. And there were no gadgets in the novels either. In the novels, Bond was often bloody, battered, tortured. He was often left for dead, filthy and torn, by mangrove swamps, poisonous gardens, beaches, tunnels, dark rooms, back-seats of cars, trains, etc. He also relied on his wits to escape situations. (he even used a Rolex watch as a knuckle duster in OHMSS - very Bourne-like). The books also centred around Bond himself. We were totally in Bond's world, Bond's perspective. Again, this is similar to the focal point of the Bourne films.

So it depends on what is important to you. Is it the `window dressing', or is it the way the action is portrayed. To me, it is the latter. To others, it isn't.

Simple really.

I agree 100 Percent again with your interpretation of the Bond/Bourne contrast and similarities. In essence, Eon created a 'pseudo-Bourne Bond' which was different enough from Bourne to call CR a Bond film.

[Kristatos]

Nope. I agree. There was nothing original about the style of CR.

However, there was nothing remotely original about DAD either (or the previous Brosnan flicks).

Arguably, there hasn't been an "original" Bond film since Goldfinger. The formula was pretty much set in stone after that.

[bjmdds]

Why GF Kris? Many films after that had different plots.

[Count_Lippe]

Count, Craig's Bond,not the prior 5 Bonds, IS similar in look and style to Jason Bourne. The storytlines ARE different but the overall 'tone' is quite similar, as the article above pointed out. It even stated Craig should thank Damon for his success.

Yes absolutely, I agree and have mentioned this myself here in the forum.

But the question this time was if the Bourne movies had been inspired by, or were in parts similar to Flemings novels, and this I don't agree with.

[The Sweeney]

Count, Craig's Bond,not the prior 5 Bonds, IS similar in look and style to Jason Bourne. The storytlines ARE different but the overall 'tone' is quite similar, as the article above pointed out. It even stated Craig should thank Damon for his success.

Yes absolutely, I agree and have mentioned this myself here in the forum.

But the question this time was if the Bourne movies had been inspired by, or were in parts similar to Flemings novels, and this I don't agree with.

Fair enough. I on the other hand do agree with.

[Kristatos]

Why GF Kris? Many films after that had different plots.

All the ingredients in the Bond formula were put into place over the course of the first three Bond films. Everything after that was just variations on a theme. I thought this was so widely accepted that I wasn't expecting anyone to argue with it. Even Roald Dahl, when he wrote YOLT, talked about having to adhere to the "Bond blueprint".

[The Sweeney]

Why GF Kris? Many films after that had different plots.

All the ingredients in the Bond formula were put into place over the course of the first three Bond films. Everything after that was just variations on a theme. I thought this was so widely accepted that I wasn't expecting anyone to argue with it. Even Roald Dahl, when he wrote YOLT, talked about having to adhere to the "Bond blueprint".

Exactly!

Arguably, the only Bond films that have managed to stray mildly since then are LTK and CR, only because they added a new, more violent approach to the action, something that was missing from most other Bond films.

[Oddjob]

OHMSS was a departure wasn't it? I get a much bigger Bond vibe from that film than CR. I get what they were doing with CR and they were right to try something new but DC just isn't Bond to me. Bond shouldn't just look like anyone. He isn't Doctor Who.

[Kristatos]

Arguably, the only Bond films that have managed to stray mildly since then are LTK and CR, only because they added a new, more violent approach to the action, something that was missing from most other Bond films.

Well, the Brosnan era was slightly different from what I call the Cubby era (DN to LTK - I know Cubby oversaw Goldeneye, but I see that as a transitional film between different generations of Broccoli) in feel - more emphasis on action and special effects and less on the other elements of the Bond formula. But really, that was just tinkering with the recipe rather than any major departure.

[The Sweeney]

OHMSS was a departure wasn't it?

Not really. OHMSS was similar in tone to FRWL.

[Kristatos]

OHMSS was a departure wasn't it?

Not really. OHMSS was similar in tone to FRWL.

It was more violent, though (actual blood being shown, which rarely happened in the first five films), and the choice of a snowy location rather than a sunny one was a conscious attempt to give it a different look and feel to the Connery films.

[bjmdds]

Arguably, the only Bond films that have managed to stray mildly since then are LTK and CR, only because they added a new, more violent approach to the action, something that was missing from most other Bond films.

Well, the Brosnan era was slightly different from what I call the Cubby era (DN to LTK - I know Cubby oversaw Goldeneye, but I see that as a transitional film between different generations of Broccoli) in feel - more emphasis on action and special effects and less on the other elements of the Bond formula. But really, that was just tinkering with the recipe rather than any major departure.

How would you rate EON I(Cubby) to EON II(MGW and Babs), in terms of direction, storyline, plots,and entertainment?

[bjmdds]

OHMSS was a departure wasn't it?

Not really. OHMSS was similar in tone to FRWL.

I found them quite different in style and content, maybe due to Lazenby's performance, or lack of.

[Kristatos]

How would you rate EON I(Cubby) to EON II(MGW and Babs), in terms of direction, storyline, plots,and entertainment?

EON I = The Italian Job starring Michael Caine, The Producers starring Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel, Bedazzled starring Peter Cook and Dudley Moore.

EON II = The Italian Job starring Mark Wahlberg, The Producers starring Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane, Bedazzled starring Brendan Fraser and Elizabeth Hurley.

Get the picture?

[The Sweeney]

How would you rate EON I(Cubby) to EON II(MGW and Babs), in terms of direction, storyline, plots,and entertainment?

EON I = The Italian Job starring Michael Caine, The Producers starring Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel, Bedazzled starring Peter Cook and Dudley Moore.

EON II = The Italian Job starring Mark Wahlberg, The Producers starring Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane, Bedazzled starring Brendan Fraser and Elizabeth Hurley.

Get the picture?

LOL!

[bjmdds]

How would you rate EON I(Cubby) to EON II(MGW and Babs), in terms of direction, storyline, plots,and entertainment?

EON I = The Italian Job starring Michael Caine, The Producers starring Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel, Bedazzled starring Peter Cook and Dudley Moore.

EON II = The Italian Job starring Mark Wahlberg, The Producers starring Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane, Bedazzled starring Brendan Fraser and Elizabeth Hurley.

Get the picture?

So I assume you prefer EON II, yet EON I gave you the best 3 opening films in the saga. EON II is experimenting with the prior success.

[The Sweeney]

How would you rate EON I(Cubby) to EON II(MGW and Babs), in terms of direction, storyline, plots,and entertainment?

EON I = The Italian Job starring Michael Caine, The Producers starring Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel, Bedazzled starring Peter Cook and Dudley Moore.

EON II = The Italian Job starring Mark Wahlberg, The Producers starring Matthew Broderick and Nathan Lane, Bedazzled starring Brendan Fraser and Elizabeth Hurley.

Get the picture?

So I assume you prefer EON II, yet EON I gave you the best 3 opening films in the saga. EON II is experimenting with the prior success.

From what he wrote, I thought it was obvious he preferred EON 1. Does anyone seiously think these remakes are better than the originals (especially Italian Job)???