The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

katied · Post by **katied** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:06 pm

You seem to be the only person running to MI6's defense *shrug*. That says a lot to me.

Post by **bjmdds** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:09 pm

Kristatos wrote:
Arthur Brain wrote:Whats all this about Bond or the villian being gay.

Come on do you really think the film makers would introduce this element into the Bond films.

It would be commercial suicide!

AB
I suspect if they did, it would be in the form of innuendo, like the line in CR about Bond taking care of his body ("Such a waste"), Wint & Kidd's dialogue, or Rosa Klebb's flirtation with Tatiana in FRWL. I think they would be well advised to steer clear of it for the opposite reason than what everyone else has stated. Rather than alienating Middle America, I think they should worry more about what the gay audience would think about gay characters always being villainous in Bond's world. After all, attitudes have changed a bit since the novel of Goldfinger was written, back in the days when an author could get away with having Bond "cure" Pussy Galore of her lesbianism.

Agree it will not be a major theme, IF true, but why even bother, unless specifically catering to a group? Bond cannot and should not ever be identified in that matter, be it subtle innuendo, or obvious. As for GF, I am still shocked that in 1964 they allowed the character of Pussy Galore to exist in a basically G rated film. In that time, it was a radical concept.

Post by **bjmdds** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:15 pm

katied wrote:No,I don't have Cinemax,and I own CR on DVD anyways so don't feel any need to watch it on cable.

The speculation about Forster's sexuality seems to be limited to MI6-I've nicknamed it The National Enquirer of Bond messageboards.

Any idea of how many DVDs of CR were sold worldwide?

katied · Post by **katied** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:17 pm

I'm as opened minded as the next person,but I agree.Bond is many things,but gay?No.Not ever.

I don't know how many copies of CR were sold.I bet there's some residuals when it's aired on Cinemax though.

Post by **Kristatos** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:27 pm

bjmdds wrote:As for GF, I am still shocked that in 1964 they allowed the character of Pussy Galore to exist in a basically G rated film. In that time, it was a radical concept.

But all mention of Pussy's lesbianism was excised from the film version as far as I recall. It was much more explicit in the novel. I think the same is true of Rosa Klebb. Her intentions towards Tatiana were unmistakeable, but it was only the occassional lustful look or remark about how pretty she was. Those would probably go straight over kids' heads.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Wed Apr 16, 2008 11:16 pm

katied wrote:You seem to be the only person running to MI6's defense *shrug*. That says a lot to me.

That's because they see you have issues which makes you a waste of time for them. Why I try to reason with you, I dunno. Bad habits I suppose. But then again, you still haven't given any evidence to the whole "they all boast about post counts" argument.

katied · Post by **katied** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:07 am

Let's take this to the MI6 thread.

If not,it really WOULD be like MI6,with people constantly posting off topic,and flame wars being allowed to rage on and the troublemakers not being punished.Except people are actually civil to each other here so that's a LOT less likely to happen

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:20 am

I rather not continue, not here nor there. It would just be another two pages of the same old:

Katied: "MI6 loves post counts and they're all bad people, I hope they all die. LOLZORZ! Are you reading what I said MI6 lurkers?!"
Stocks: "Prove it that they boast about post counts."
Katied: "MI6 loves post counts and they're all bad people, I hope they all die. LOLZORZ! Are you reading what I said MI6 lurkers?!"

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:23 am

What does LOLZORZ mean? I never saw that.

katied · Post by **katied** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:25 am

Lame internet shorthand.WAY overused.Much like n00b.

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:33 am

Thanks Katied.

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:35 am

Kristatos wrote:
bjmdds wrote:As for GF, I am still shocked that in 1964 they allowed the character of Pussy Galore to exist in a basically G rated film. In that time, it was a radical concept.
But all mention of Pussy's lesbianism was excised from the film version as far as I recall. It was much more explicit in the novel. I think the same is true of Rosa Klebb. Her intentions towards Tatiana were unmistakeable, but it was only the occassional lustful look or remark about how pretty she was. Those would probably go straight over kids' heads.

The name alone was provactive in and of itself in 1964, way over the top.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:36 am

I suppose using a name like Pussy Galore was just Ian Fleming's way of showing he doesn't give a d**n if it's over the top and provactive, that if he's gonna name a woman Pussy Galore then he has all the right to.

I find it curious why they chose the provactive title for the 1983 film. They had a film based on two short stories, The Property of the Lady and Octopussy. Naturally they could have used the former but decided to go with the other. It would have been a safer bet to use TPOTL. Plus today everyone could still debate whether they would use Octopssy for one of Craig's upcoming films.

Post by **Skywalker** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:37 am

Milton Krest wrote:I concur with you Skywalker, i am looking forward to the film which i do hope is a more traditional Bond film. Daniel i am afraid i can not except as Bond no matter what PR machine he has trying to tell us he is. But you can polish a turd and make a reasonable film despite the lead being miscast.

James1090 · Post by **James1090** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 1:51 pm

stockslivevan wrote: I find it curious why they chose the provactive title for the 1983 film. They had a film based on two short stories, The Property of the Lady and Octopussy. Naturally they could have used the former but decided to go with the other. It would have been a safer bet to use TPOTL. Plus today everyone could still debate whether they would use Octopssy for one of Craig's upcoming films.

Are you suggesting a remake of old Bond movies because you didn't like the actor? If so thats a stupid reason. Why remake old Bond movies in the first place.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:32 pm

I never suggested a remake.

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:59 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-_1Pwlz ... re=related Does this have the ability to top CR at the box office?

James1090 · Post by **James1090** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:02 pm

stockslivevan wrote:I never suggested a remake.

My bad, I misinterprited what you said then.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:21 am

bjmdds wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-_1Pwlz ... re=related Does this have the ability to top CR at the box office?

It's possible, CR had a lot of raving reviews from the majority of Bond fans and non-Bond fans. It could make more or less. Right now the hype is only for the Bond fans since none of the non-fans have seen the teasers, trailers and other promotionals stuff. I expect the hype to really build up by the summer once everyone is going to the movies to see the blockbusters, while seeing a QOS trailer right before the feature.

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:07 am

Just two weeks until Iron Man starts one of the biggest movie summer box office cycles in a long time. It will be interesting to see IF the audiences respond well to new films, Iron Man, Speed Racer, or sequels, Indy 4, The Hulk, The Dark Knight, in the summer, and QOSTBM and Harry Potter in the fall. I do not recall a year with so many POTENTIAL blockbuster films. Studios have shelled out the bucks. Will they be rewarded, and which film will out do the others financially? I think Indy 4 will be number one.