The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

agent english · Post by **agent english** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:12 pm

I'am back

Just had a look at this site and saw that BJMDDS is here.

Just have a few points to say.

1/

The supporters here say they have been treated badly by other Bond sites..........but hey you guys started this mud slinging act against an actor
and its producers before a frame was shot...so what do you expect from
other Bond fans.

2/

You were ridiculed by MI6 and Commanderbond.net for your ridiculous
boxoffice predictions which were staggeringly way off the mark.
How you can predict that Bond 22 will do poorly against its competition
in 2008 is beyond me.

3/

I understand why you dislike Craig and CR, but what is your purpose
when you are in such a minority against millions of satisfied, educated Bond fans the world over.

4/

Will you guys ever be happy with the franchise??????????

EA

ps: good to see you still posting SWEENEY.

Post by **Skywalker** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:53 pm

english agent wrote:I'am back

Great.

english agent wrote:How you can predict that Bond 22 will do poorly against its competition in 2008 is beyond me.

BJ has given plenty of reasons as to why he feels Bond 22 will not do as well. You might not agree with him, but he's backed up his opinion.

english agent wrote: I understand why you dislike Craig and CR, but what is your purpose?.

You obviously do not understand then.

english agent wrote:when you are in such a minority against millions of satisfied, educated Bond fans the world over.

I guess I'm in the dissatisfied, educated Bond fans group.

english agent wrote:Will you guys ever be happy with the franchise??????????.

Well I was until CR.

Post by **James** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:49 pm

Anyone else have a sense of déjà vu?

Post by **James** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:54 pm

Anyone else have a sense of déjà vu?

Post by **carl stromberg** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:57 pm

Anyone else have a sense of déjà vu?

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:31 pm

Is anyone here familiar with the term SPAM! ?
On a side note, great post English Agent.

ID · Post by ID » Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:35 pm

Anyone else have a sense of déjà vu?

Post by **Kristatos** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:10 am

english agent wrote:I understand why you dislike Craig and CR, but what is your purpose
when you are in such a minority against millions of satisfied, educated Bond fans the world over.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I come here to meet fellow members of that minority and to get away from the adulation of Craig that permeates every other Bond forum. But it seems Craigianity is a missionary faith, and its evangelists won't be satisfied until every last Bond fan has been assimilated into the hive mind.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:11 am

ID wrote:Anyone else have a sense of déjà vu?

Funny, BJ even predicted Casino Royale would be blown away by that movie with Denzel Washington's star power.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:29 am

Kristatos wrote:
english agent wrote:I understand why you dislike Craig and CR, but what is your purpose
when you are in such a minority against millions of satisfied, educated Bond fans the world over.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I come here to meet fellow members of that minority and to get away from the adulation of Craig that permeates every other Bond forum. But it seems Craigianity is a missionary faith, and its evangelists won't be satisfied until every last Bond fan has been assimilated into the hive mind.

Just keep heading towards the light Kristatos.

You know it makes sense.

Post by **bjmdds** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:50 am

The Sweeney wrote:
paco chaos wrote:All I know is at work we got two copies of Casino Royale in for sale on it's initial release date. they are both still sitting in our dvd bin. We got 6 copies of Happy Feet, and we are completely sold out. granted I work in a drug store, not a video store, but a great deal of the time the hot titles sell really well for us.
I'd love to know which planet, or reality you live in Paco, because it doesn't sound like mine at all.

Or maybe the British have taken to Craig far more than Americans have.

The UK brought in $59 million for DAD in 2002;$105 million for CR in 2006. Even adjusting for inflation, the UK really went out to see their own, maybe as they should, be a home grown actor. In the USA, in 2002, DAD brought in $161 million, and CR $167 million in 2006. Adjusting for inflation, CR UNDER-performed DAD in the USA. CLEARLY, the evidence supports your hypothesis that the UK is hip to Craig, as is the international box office, whereas the USA is luke-warm, at best, and may even do less here in 2008.

Post by **bjmdds** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:54 am

Kristatos wrote:
english agent wrote:I understand why you dislike Craig and CR, but what is your purpose
when you are in such a minority against millions of satisfied, educated Bond fans the world over.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I come here to meet fellow members of that minority and to get away from the adulation of Craig that permeates every other Bond forum. But it seems Craigianity is a missionary faith, and its evangelists won't be satisfied until every last Bond fan has been assimilated into the hive mind.

I agree totally. Those who oppose Eon's creation have no problem debating that fact. For some reason, Craig has become a Bond legend to his flock of supporters;however, to me, that will never be the case, but I do not mind their contrary opinions, but for some unknown reason, they do mind our's.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:58 am

Lukewarm? You call $167 million lukewarm?

CR is on par with half of the Brosnan films concerning the unreliable adjusted numbers. Besides, it doesn't matter. CR will be referred to as the highest grossing Bond film by everything except DCNB.com and you BJ.

At least until a future Bond film surpasses $167 million.

Post by **bjmdds** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:04 am

stockslivevan wrote:Lukewarm? You call $167 million lukewarm? CR is on par with half of the Brosnan films concerning the unreliable adjusted numbers. Besides, it doesn't matter. CR will be referred to as the highest grossing Bond film by everything except DCNB.com and you BJ. At least until a future Bond film surpasses $167 million.

When Happy Feet and Night At The Museum approach $200 million at the box office and CR does not come close to pre-opening expectations, and even underperforms the prior 2002 Bond film,IN THE USA, yes, with the money EON shelled out promoting CR, yes, it was luke-warm in 2006 expected revenues, especially when Sony spent $270 million total to produce and market CR, YES indeed, luke-warm for a 2006 Bond film release, in the USA market, NOT the international market.

Post by **bjmdds** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:08 am

Skywalker wrote:
english agent wrote:I'am back

Great.

english agent wrote:How you can predict that Bond 22 will do poorly against its competition in 2008 is beyond me.

BJ has given plenty of reasons as to why he feels Bond 22 will not do as well. You might not agree with him, but he's backed up his opinion.

english agent wrote: I understand why you dislike Craig and CR, but what is your purpose?.
You obviously do not understand then.

english agent wrote:when you are in such a minority against millions of satisfied, educated Bond fans the world over.
I guess I'm in the dissatisfied, educated Bond fans group.

english agent wrote:Will you guys ever be happy with the franchise??????????.
Well I was until CR.

Correct Skywalker, we "WERE" happy with the franchise ,for the most part,UNTIL now, it is not a question of whether we "will be" happy.

paco chaos · Post by **paco chaos** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:34 am

stockslivevan wrote:Lukewarm? You call $167 million lukewarm? CR is on par with half of the Brosnan films concerning the unreliable adjusted numbers. Besides, it doesn't matter. CR will be referred to as the highest grossing Bond film by everything except DCNB.com and you BJ. At least until a future Bond film surpasses $167 million.

and 300 which stars Gerard Butler has already made $174 million in 3 weeks time. had Butler been chosen as Bond I wouldn't have complained.

Post by **bjmdds** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:42 am

Absolutely. Craig fanatics consider CR a success in the USA, and that is not the case, for EON probably hoped for a lot more revenue here. They got what they wanted internationally, not domestically, although it did OK in the USA, but by NO means, heroic revenue.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:49 am

paco chaos wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:Lukewarm? You call $167 million lukewarm? CR is on par with half of the Brosnan films concerning the unreliable adjusted numbers. Besides, it doesn't matter. CR will be referred to as the highest grossing Bond film by everything except DCNB.com and you BJ. At least until a future Bond film surpasses $167 million.
and 300 which stars Gerard Butler has already made $174 million in 3 weeks time. had Butler been chosen as Bond I wouldn't have complained.

Because Gerard Butler was cast in 300 that assured the film to make that much money?

I seriously doubt people went to see it because of that guy.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:17 am

bjmdds wrote:When Happy Feet and Night At The Museum approach $200 million at the box office and CR does not come close

There you go again with the Penguins and Museum. Two FAMILY movies that have absolutely nothing to do with Casino Royale.

even underperforms the prior 2002 Bond film,IN THE USA

Again, only using unreliable numbers to help your claims. Even if those numbers were used by everyone (which is not) it is still up there with the Brosnan films, not below them all. Why do you have to bring up only DAD when there were other films close it it consistently? Does that mean half of Brosnan's films are considered lukewarm as well?

with the money EON shelled out promoting CR, yes, it was luke-warm in 2006 expected revenues, especially when Sony spent $270 million total to produce and market CR, YES indeed.

Suddenly you bring up how much it cost to promote the film and rely on that to claim it wasn't a success? And how much money was spent on DAD promotions? I seriously doubt Sony was expecting over $200 million in the US since NO Bond film has ever crossed that line and the fact that this starred a new Bond actor. Besides, I seriously doubt they relied strictly on US figures since Bond is a worldwide figure. It's not like an american film relying on the domestic returns, this is a much bigger film and it got almost $600 million in returns, clearly they got their money back in a big way.

So what you are saying is that $167 million is not a success in the US? Is that correct BJ? Are you saying that crossing the 100 line wasn't a success. For crying out loud, you didn't even expect it to pass $100 million esspecially with unknown castmembers. Suddenly you call it underperforming? You're amazing. CR was a success in the US. Not as embracing as international figures but then again when was Bond more popular in the US than internationals? I don't think Bond has been as popular after Connery left as far as the US is concerned. CR remained consistent with the Brosnan grossings. It was below DAD but not too drastically. Just look at the chart.

Yeah, Craig's film dropped below considerably.

And you say we exaggerate with praise but you sure act as if the US snubbed Craig like they did with Dalton.

Post by **bjmdds** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:41 am

Not at all, Dalton was shunned by the USA, as is proof by the $8.7 million LTK did in 1989 opening weekend. The percentage increase from Brosnan to Craig was negligible in the USA,box office wise,yet it was dramatic internationally. Eon's own polling reported that CR would not be the hit they had hoped in the USA, but it did OK, but nothing earth shattering. The percentage increase from Dalton to Brosnan was noticeable as well. By the way, your own graph PROVES beyond the shadow of a doubt what Brosnan meant to the franchise, despite your fellow MI6-ers hatred of him.