The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[John Drake]

And many others. Charisma=box office gold. Where is it, outside of Bond then? It is quite obvious that Eon has totally 100% abandoned the franchise as it was. Even replacing his traditional guns with a bazooka type rifle, and fight scenes with switchblade knives vs. intellectually stimulating gadgets, with an actor's look that is so foreign to any long time fan of the films, all demonstrate Broccoli's systematic destruction of Cubby's universe into one of her own ridiculous copycat genres. This may be enjoyed by many Craig fans, but this is NOT a James Bond film.

Sadly, Craig's inability to draw flies outside of the (marketed, hyped and world famous) James Bond bubble may result in him hanging around the Bond franchise longer than he initially suggested.

[The Sweeney]

And many others. Charisma=box office gold. Where is it, outside of Bond then? It is quite obvious that Eon has totally 100% abandoned the franchise as it was. Even replacing his traditional guns with a bazooka type rifle, and fight scenes with switchblade knives vs. intellectually stimulating gadgets, with an actor's look that is so foreign to any long time fan of the films, all demonstrate Broccoli's systematic destruction of Cubby's universe into one of her own ridiculous copycat genres. This may be enjoyed by many Craig fans, but this is NOT a James Bond film.

Sadly, Craig's inability to draw flies outside of the (marketed, hyped and world famous) James Bond bubble may result in him hanging around the Bond franchise longer than he initially suggested.

Let's hope so.

If that is true, you guys are here for the long haul then. Years of misery to look forward to....

[English Agent]

And many others. Charisma=box office gold. Where is it, outside of Bond then? It is quite obvious that Eon has totally 100% abandoned the franchise as it was. Even replacing his traditional guns with a bazooka type rifle, and fight scenes with switchblade knives vs. intellectually stimulating gadgets, with an actor's look that is so foreign to any long time fan of the films, all demonstrate Broccoli's systematic destruction of Cubby's universe into one of her own ridiculous copycat genres. This may be enjoyed by many Craig fans, but this is NOT a James Bond film.

Sadly, Craig's inability to draw flies outside of the (marketed, hyped and world famous) James Bond bubble may result in him hanging around the Bond franchise longer than he initially suggested.

Let's hope so.

If that is true, you guys are here for the long haul then. Years of misery to look forward to....

You are wicked 'Sweeney'.........but the statements true!

Some people here might find themselves eventually accepting the updated Bond format.

AB

[Captain Nash]

QOS may not be everyones idea of a Bond film. But it is a Bond film.
Daniel Craig has proven himself to be accepted as James Bond with the massive success of Casino Royale.
I'll bet that with his second film, he'll be just as popular. It seems that EON have taken the usual route with #2. All out action. Hopefully the stuff in between works to. Judging by many of the comments I've read it does. We'll see in the latter part of the year.
Glad to see the old pro and anti-Craig arguments have started up again.
Let's dust off the old height chart, hair colour and attractivness stuff again. Ahhh happy times are here to stay.

[Kristatos]

QOS may not be everyones idea of a Bond film. But it is a Bond film.
Daniel Craig has proven himself to be accepted as James Bond with the massive success of Casino Royale.
I'll bet that with his second film, he'll be just as popular.

Just as a purely hypothetical/rhetorical question, what if he isn't? If QOS did tank (which I don't think it will), would we hear silence from the pro-Craigers here, or wailing and gnashing of teeth? Just wondering.

[bjmdds]

So did Brosnan's, Dalton's, Lazenby's, Moore's and pre-Untouchables Connery.

Who ever said the other five Bond actors had charisma? They didn't either. You stated Craig has it. Where? He is as dull a Hollywood actor as they come.

[The Sweeney]

So did Brosnan's, Dalton's, Lazenby's, Moore's and pre-Untouchables Connery.

Who ever said the other five Bond actors had charisma? They didn't either. You stated Craig has it. Where? He is as dull a Hollywood actor as they come.

If the other actors didn't either, why are you complaining so much about Craig's lack of charisma?

[The Sweeney]

QOS may not be everyones idea of a Bond film. But it is a Bond film.
Daniel Craig has proven himself to be accepted as James Bond with the massive success of Casino Royale.
I'll bet that with his second film, he'll be just as popular.

Just as a purely hypothetical/rhetorical question, what if he isn't? If QOS did tank (which I don't think it will), would we hear silence from the pro-Craigers here, or wailing and gnashing of teeth? Just wondering.

Easy answer to this.

If the film is great, then I would hope the film is a financial success too. If it tanks, I would be slightly worried, but at least I got one more decent Bond film out of the franchise.

If the film is crap (by crap, I mean Brosnan standard) then I hope and pray the film tanks, big style!

[bjmdds]

So did Brosnan's, Dalton's, Lazenby's, Moore's and pre-Untouchables Connery.

Who ever said the other five Bond actors had charisma? They didn't either. You stated Craig has it. Where? He is as dull a Hollywood actor as they come.

If the other actors didn't either, why are you complaining so much about Craig's lack of charisma?

Stocks stated Craig has charisma. My response was to that particular statement.

[bjmdds]

And many others. Charisma=box office gold. Where is it, outside of Bond then? It is quite obvious that Eon has totally 100% abandoned the franchise as it was. Even replacing his traditional guns with a bazooka type rifle, and fight scenes with switchblade knives vs. intellectually stimulating gadgets, with an actor's look that is so foreign to any long time fan of the films, all demonstrate Broccoli's systematic destruction of Cubby's universe into one of her own ridiculous copycat genres. This may be enjoyed by many Craig fans, but this is NOT a James Bond film.

Sadly, Craig's inability to draw flies outside of the (marketed, hyped and world famous) James Bond bubble may result in him hanging around the Bond franchise longer than he initially suggested.

Ironically Craig hesitated to take the role of Bond for it might interfere with his other 'artistic' endeavours. So far, that has been a 100% failure. Being Bond will be all he is ever known for, with all of his so-called great acting skills. He is the least articulate of any of the actors. The public has a hard time understanding his lines. That will not be a problem in TBM which will have him doing more stunts than dialogue it seems.

[bjmdds]

QOS may not be everyones idea of a Bond film. But it is a Bond film.
Daniel Craig has proven himself to be accepted as James Bond with the massive success of Casino Royale.
I'll bet that with his second film, he'll be just as popular.

Just as a purely hypothetical/rhetorical question, what if he isn't? If QOS did tank (which I don't think it will), would we hear silence from the pro-Craigers here, or wailing and gnashing of teeth? Just wondering.

Easy answer to this.

If the film is great, then I would hope the film is a financial success too. If it tanks, I would be slightly worried, but at least I got one more decent Bond film out of the franchise.

If the film is crap (by crap, I mean Brosnan standard) then I hope and pray the film tanks, big style!

I predict you will NOT enjoy this as much as you did CR Sweenster, for it does not seems to be your type of Bond film.

[The Sweeney]

I predict you will NOT enjoy this as much as you did CR Sweenster, for it does not seems to be your type of Bond film.

Depends on how the action is portrayed, but I fear you could possibly be right bj.

I loved TBU, which was non-stop action, so have no problem with that. If the action sequences are more of the same from what we had in CR (no gadgets, grittier, more violent, bloody, etc.) then I will be happy with that.

If however, the action sequences refer back to the nightmare Brozza days (OTT spectacular, laughably bad CGI, ridiculous gadgets, underwater tie-straightening, etc.) then I will be the number 1 DCINB fan on this site.....

[English Agent]

I predict you will NOT enjoy this as much as you did CR Sweenster, for it does not seems to be your type of Bond film.

Depends on how the action is portrayed, but I fear you could possibly be right bj.

I loved TBU, which was non-stop action, so have no problem with that. If the action sequences are more of the same from what we had in CR (no gadgets, grittier, more violent, bloody, etc.) then I will be happy with that.

If however, the action sequences refer back to the nightmare Brozza days (OTT spectacular, laughably bad CGI, ridiculous gadgets, underwater tie-straightening, etc.) then I will be the number 1 DCINB fan on this site.....

Blimey 'Sweeney'.......you become No1 DCINB fan........dont be silly, you know QOS wont let you down!:lol:

Even though the trailer was only a teaser, it gives you a good impression of what the film should be like.........and it wont
have OTT spectacular, laughably bad CGI, ridiculous gadgets, underwater tie-straightening, etc.

Shame we've still got 4 months to wait though!

AB

[bjmdds]

I predict you will NOT enjoy this as much as you did CR Sweenster, for it does not seems to be your type of Bond film.

Depends on how the action is portrayed, but I fear you could possibly be right bj.

I loved TBU, which was non-stop action, so have no problem with that. If the action sequences are more of the same from what we had in CR (no gadgets, grittier, more violent, bloody, etc.) then I will be happy with that.

If however, the action sequences refer back to the nightmare Brozza days (OTT spectacular, laughably bad CGI, ridiculous gadgets, underwater tie-straightening, etc.) then I will be the number 1 DCINB fan on this site.....

How could you be a fan of Bond films and not enjoy the gadgets? THAT was the draw at it's inception in 1962 and continued for 40 years until this Craig/reboot fiasco emerged.

[bjmdds]

I predict you will NOT enjoy this as much as you did CR Sweenster, for it does not seems to be your type of Bond film.

Depends on how the action is portrayed, but I fear you could possibly be right bj.

I loved TBU, which was non-stop action, so have no problem with that. If the action sequences are more of the same from what we had in CR (no gadgets, grittier, more violent, bloody, etc.) then I will be happy with that.

If however, the action sequences refer back to the nightmare Brozza days (OTT spectacular, laughably bad CGI, ridiculous gadgets, underwater tie-straightening, etc.) then I will be the number 1 DCINB fan on this site.....

Blimey 'Sweeney'.......you become No1 DCINB fan........dont be silly, you know QOS wont let you down!:lol:

Even though the trailer was only a teaser, it gives you a good impression of what the film should be like.........and it wont
have OTT spectacular, laughably bad CGI, ridiculous gadgets, underwater tie-straightening, etc.

Shame we've still got 4 months to wait though!

AB

Watching Wimbledon Brain? Federer or Nadal? Venus or Serena? Craig or Jackman?

[English Agent]

AB[/quote]Watching Wimbledon Brain? Federer or Nadal? Venus or Serena? Craig or Jackman? [/quote]

Surprisingly i havn't watched a full game at wimbledon this year!!

btw: Amonst his skills, has 007 ever played tennis...not in the films, but novels?

[The Sweeney]

How could you be a fan of Bond films and not enjoy the gadgets? THAT was the draw at it's inception in 1962 and continued for 40 years until this Craig/reboot fiasco emerged.

The Aston Martin in GF is as far as I want to see gadgets, or the Aston Martin in TLD. That I don't mind. I don't even mind Moore's dart watch in MR.

It was the OTT gadgets that I really hated, as they tended to have stupid comedy moments on the back of them - invisible cars, underwater cars with a fish being thrown out of the window, gondolas on wheels with double-taking pigeons. That's the kind of stuff I despise with a passion.

Silly humour in a Bond movie (or any action movie) is a BIG no no for me.

[Kristatos]

It was the OTT gadgets that I really hated, as they tended to have stupid comedy moments on the back of them

So, what if a future Bond film were to have OTT gadgets, but without the silly comedy?

[carl stromberg]

AB

Watching Wimbledon Brain? Federer or Nadal? Venus or Serena? Craig or Jackman? [/quote]

Surprisingly i havn't watched a full game at wimbledon this year!!

btw: Amonst his skills, has 007 ever played tennis...not in the films, but novels?

Have a look at this article Arthur - some fan said that Bond would not play tennis!

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 083541.ece

Of course it includes a snipe at Die Another Day from someone at Commander Bond.net!

[The Sweeney]

It was the OTT gadgets that I really hated, as they tended to have stupid comedy moments on the back of them

So, what if a future Bond film were to have OTT gadgets, but without the silly comedy?

The invisible car was an OTT gadget that didn't have any silly comedy on the back of it.

I'll leave you to figure out what the answer will be....