The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

Post by **Kristatos** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:58 pm

bjmdds wrote:
Kristatos wrote:
bjmdds wrote: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

Post by **James** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:10 pm

The general consensus elsewhere seems to be that Barbara (post Cubby) has made four s**t films and one that may be the greatest of all time and had people openly wetting themselves in cinemas. I think Barbara has been responsible for five unremarkable films since taking over the family shop.

Post by **Kristatos** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:03 pm

James wrote:The general consensus elsewhere seems to be that Barbara (post Cubby) has made four s**t films and one that may be the greatest of all time and had people openly wetting themselves in cinemas. I think Barbara has been responsible for five unremarkable films since taking over the family shop.

Sadly, I think she was merely doing what it took to ensure the survival of the series. The EON I films probably wouldn't have been hits in the 90's, so she made them louder, dumber and bigger. CR was a step in the right direction. I just wish they'd cast a different Bond and a different M, and retained the essence of the EON I Bond instead of changing him into something else.

Post by **James** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:12 pm

I agree that it was time to do something new, I just didn't like the actor they picked. There is a tendancy to say that if you didn't like CR you wanted Die Another Day II and that isn't true at all.

Post by **bjmdds** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:07 am

Kristatos wrote:
bjmdds wrote:
Kristatos wrote:
bjmdds wrote: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

Didn't Wahlberg just do an excellent job in the remake of Planet Of The Apes, as compared to the original with Heston?

I get your drift and agree.

Post by **bjmdds** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:12 am

I watched a few recent films from Forster this week on cable television. I do not know where this guy comes to directing an action packed Bond film unless his emphasis will be geared toward more character development and Bond's psyche.

He likes to go back and forth a lot to people's faces to get their expressions and it gets annoying. At least Campbell had a track record the second time.

Post by **bjmdds** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:14 am

James wrote:The general consensus elsewhere seems to be that Barbara (post Cubby) has made four s**t films and one that may be the greatest of all time and had people openly wetting themselves in cinemas. I think Barbara has been responsible for five unremarkable films since taking over the family shop.

You might have to add Bond 22 to your list James.

Post by **bjmdds** » Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:17 am

James wrote:I agree that it was time to do something new, I just didn't like the actor they picked. There is a tendancy to say that if you didn't like CR you wanted Die Another Day II and that isn't true at all.

I agree with the Sweeney that DAD is not up to par for a Bond film, yet it did well, in spite of itself James. The radical departure from DAD to CR is probably what made it more successful internationally, and this frenzy fed upon itself, making it more successful than DAD.

Post by **Kristatos** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 1:01 am

James wrote:I agree that it was time to do something new, I just didn't like the actor they picked. There is a tendancy to say that if you didn't like CR you wanted Die Another Day II and that isn't true at all.

Yeah, drag the franchise back towards Fleming by all means. But you can do that in a skillful way that takes the audience along with you (like OHMSS, FYEO or TLD); or you can do it in a lumbering, artless way that draws attention to itself at every opportunity (like CR). The sad thing is, I don't believe that Babs or Martin Campbell consciously chose the latter. They just lack the deft touch and instinctive understanding of what makes Bond work that Cubby and the Bond "family" of directors possessed.

Post by **bjmdds** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 5:17 pm

Are MGW and Babs married,or have children? I wonder if the franchise ends with their run, or if they have family that they will groom for the future of this franchise. At what point will Sony make them an 'offer they cannot refuse' and turn over Bond 100% to Pascall et al?

james stock · Post by **james stock** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:07 pm

I think that jame bond is dead after casino royale

The critics liked it though and held it up as high art whick completly dumfounded me??????

Post by **The Sweeney** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:14 pm

james stock wrote:I think that jame bond is dead after casino royale

The critics liked it though and held it up as high art whick completly dumfounded me??????

Which goes to show that Bond isn't dead after all, and 22 may actually do better business than CR did.

agent english · Post by **agent english** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:01 pm

Having read the recent posts.

It seems to me that the naysayers here seem to think that the Bond franchise has drifted from the norm of what Fleming had envisaged for
his creation.

But i disagree......I really dont think that Fleming would think that CR was
less of a Bond film than say the likes of AVTAK and Moonraker which were
excruciatingly childish (though enjoyable in parts).

Remember those films from the 80's were a mile away from the classic films of the 60's.

I find it beyond comprehension that some people here think that CR's
success was due to some mass media hypnotism of the public.

I've yet to meet anyone outside of this forum who disliked CR.

Over 10,000,000 Britons who saw the film cant be wrong.

It may not of been what some of you guys wanted to see, but the reality is that you did really like the film, its just the fact that you cant admit to
this fact after your prior slagging off.....................I've hit the nail on the head here havn't i???????

Post by **007** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:52 pm

Stifles yawn.

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:00 am

james stock wrote:I think that jame bond is dead after casino royale

The critics liked it though and held it up as high art whick completly dumfounded me??????

He is not dead yet Stock, just M.I.A. for the traditionalist Bond fans. The draw was the stark seriousness nature and violence, not the actor. I too cannot fathom the lure of this film.

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:05 am

english agent wrote:Having read the recent posts.

It seems to me that the naysayers here seem to think that the Bond franchise has drifted from the norm of what Fleming had envisaged for
his creation.

But i disagree......I really dont think that Fleming would think that CR was
less of a Bond film than say the likes of AVTAK and Moonraker which were
excruciatingly childish (though enjoyable in parts).

Remember those films from the 80's were a mile away from the classic films of the 60's.

I find it beyond comprehension that some people here think that CR's
success was due to some mass media hypnotism of the public.

I've yet to meet anyone outside of this forum who disliked CR.

Over 10,000,000 Britons who saw the film cant be wrong.

It may not of been what some of you guys wanted to see, but the reality is that you did really like the film, its just the fact that you cant admit to
this fact after your prior slagging off.....................I've hit the nail on the head here havn't i???????

Go meet Charles Vine on MI6 for outside contrary opinion. No one is wrong if they like a film. It is still puzzling why people embraced Craig as Bond. Mass media hypnotism, or was it longing for a Bourne-like Bond? In a few weeks, we will see if the public still desires this genre of spy film when Matt Damon's renegade alter ego is released again on the big screen.

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:08 am

The Sweeney wrote:
james stock wrote:I think that jame bond is dead after casino royale

The critics liked it though and held it up as high art whick completly dumfounded me??????
Which goes to show that Bond isn't dead after all, and 22 may actually do better business than CR did.

IF it does not Sweeney, will you embrace Bond 7 with the same enthusiasm as you have embraced Craig, or has he spoiled you forever?

Post by **The Sweeney** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:43 am

bjmdds wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:
james stock wrote:I think that jame bond is dead after casino royale

The critics liked it though and held it up as high art whick completly dumfounded me??????
Which goes to show that Bond isn't dead after all, and 22 may actually do better business than CR did.
IF it does not Sweeney, will you embrace Bond 7 with the same enthusiasm as you have embraced Craig, or has he spoiled you forever?

If 22 is more of the same we saw in CR, then I'm a happy bunny, regardless of how successful it is.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:46 am

Unless Bond # 7 is totally miscast then I'll accept him.
Like I have enjoyed all six of the actors to play James Bond thus far.

Post by **Skywalker** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:22 pm

english agent wrote:Having read the recent posts.

It seems to me that the naysayers here seem to think that the Bond franchise has drifted from the norm of what Fleming had envisaged for
his creation.

But i disagree......I really dont think that Fleming would think that CR was
less of a Bond film than say the likes of AVTAK and Moonraker which were
excruciatingly childish (though enjoyable in parts).

Remember those films from the 80's were a mile away from the classic films of the 60's.

I find it beyond comprehension that some people here think that CR's
success was due to some mass media hypnotism of the public.

I've yet to meet anyone outside of this forum who disliked CR.

Over 10,000,000 Britons who saw the film cant be wrong.

It may not of been what some of you guys wanted to see, but the reality is that you did really like the film, its just the fact that you cant admit to
this fact after your prior slagging off.....................I've hit the nail on the head here havn't i???????

Interesting post EA. Usually I just ignore you as you tend to post cr*p, but I like your question.

For me CR was so different to the cinematic Bond. Gone was the refinement and in its place was a blunt instrument. The difference in tone was just too vast and IMO it has changed the concept of what the cinematic character had become. I appreciate many people consider the new style to be more akin to the novels, but this has come at the expense of the 'MORE' popular cinematic version.

I accept that CR has performed well at the BO and the fact that it was a commercial success. This was mainly due to the fact of the aggressive marketing campaign and the curiosity factor. I'm sure similar results will be attained for Bond 22 and if that is the case DC will go down as a 'great' Bond.

Personally I rank CR as the worst Bond film ever. My reason is that it has strayed so far from what I perceive as a Bond film. As a general movie I consider CR to be good.