The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

Post by **The Sweeney** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:21 pm

Skywalker wrote:
paco chaos wrote:actually I believe the point being made is that Casino Royale was supposed to be a more realistic, human Bond, yet there are many OTT scenes, that betray this idea. that's not to say that DAD was less OTT.
Stock and Sweeney have tunnel vision when it comes to CR and Craig. You do know that these ladies never criticise Daniel 'Rambo' Craig, even if they secretly want to.

Why would I secretly want to....?

Post by **Skywalker** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:28 pm

The Sweeney wrote:
Skywalker wrote:
paco chaos wrote:actually I believe the point being made is that Casino Royale was supposed to be a more realistic, human Bond, yet there are many OTT scenes, that betray this idea. that's not to say that DAD was less OTT.
Stock and Sweeney have tunnel vision when it comes to CR and Craig. You do know that these ladies never criticise Daniel 'Rambo' Craig, even if they secretly want to.
Why would I secretly want to....?

I meant to put Stock and Nash.

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:27 pm

Captain Nash wrote:
bjmdds wrote:
Captain Nash wrote:I liked the way he made the character his own, and didn't try to copy one of the other actors. I thought he had a real screen presence, and although he's blond it never bothered me. He has the charm and the humour, though he plays it differently. He made Bond more human to me. The shower scene was a scene that stood out to me. He was James Bond to me... not a better James Bond. But still OO7. When he was cast I had my reservations...could he pull it off. Then when the so called boycott started and made a mockery of all Bond fans ( ) I thought let's give the guy a chance. How can you give an opinion to an actor before you've seen the finished product? And when I did, I thought he'd done it...and done it well. He's given the best Bond performance so far as I'm concerned of the last twenty years. That's not to say I haven't enjoyed the Bond films for that long, I like Brosnan, but not DAD, can't stand it...though on a recent viewing I enjoyed it slightly more than usual. But as I've said in another post. Bond is such a diverse character, novels films, six different actors. They're will never be a perfect Bond, but try and give each one a fair go. That's what I've done with Daniel Craig.
Charm;humour;screen presence;shower scene a standout;Nash, I guess that it what makes for varying degrees of perception. I saw NO charm exuded by Craig's Bond, NO humour, for Craig lacks the ability to be funny, NO screen presence, and a rather uncomfortable look in a tuxedo, and I do not define a Bond film by a 'standout' shower scene. He did not copy any of the prior Bonds but you sure can see similarities with Damon and Sutherland. To me, a Bond film is all about the fantasy world of espionage, tracking down villains, extraordinary devices to keep Bond alive, beautiful women(not Green and too little Murino), saving the world, interesting plots, and a handsome, suave, licensed to kill spy, named James Bond. You have your views, and they are what validated CR to you. I just have such an anthetical view of what I expect from a Bond film. CR did entice the masses, along with you, and the Sweeney, and the rest of your crowd here. Let us see how long it will last.
I didn't say the shower seen was a standout, merely used it as an example of why it made Craig more of a human Bond with real emotions. Your continual comparrison to Bourne and Bauer suggests to me that you're not a true fan of the Bond films. Or Bond in general. You seem to know nothing of the character and the way I see it understand Bond only from your many viewings of the Brosnan films. You hide yourself in the comfort zone of your own little thread that got locked on other forums because it became a waste of time. Your opinions matters not to me, I just like proving you wrong again and again.

Nash, I saw Bond films in the theatres before you were probably born, many years prior to Brosnan's films.. To not like CR does not mean someone is not a Bond fan. If you feel this is a waste of time and could care less what I say, do yourself a big favor and post elsewhere and end your misery.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:18 pm

Skywalker wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:
Skywalker wrote:
paco chaos wrote:actually I believe the point being made is that Casino Royale was supposed to be a more realistic, human Bond, yet there are many OTT scenes, that betray this idea. that's not to say that DAD was less OTT.
Stock and Sweeney have tunnel vision when it comes to CR and Craig. You do know that these ladies never criticise Daniel 'Rambo' Craig, even if they secretly want to.
Why would I secretly want to....?
I meant to put Stock and Nash.

If I wanted to criticise Craig I would say he had a bad hair cut but that doesn't really matter now for me because he offered something better than a bad haircut: a good performance.

Post by **Skywalker** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:23 pm

stockslivevan wrote: If I wanted to criticise Craig I would say he had a bad hair cut but that doesn't really matter now for me because he offered something better than a bad haircut: a good performance.

Good performance YES
Bond performance NO

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:26 pm

Skywalker wrote:
stockslivevan wrote: If I wanted to criticise Craig I would say he had a bad hair cut but that doesn't really matter now for me because he offered something better than a bad haircut: a good performance.
Good performance YES
Bond performance NO

Sorry you feel that way Skywalker.

Post by **Skywalker** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:27 pm

stockslivevan wrote:
Skywalker wrote:
stockslivevan wrote: If I wanted to criticise Craig I would say he had a bad hair cut but that doesn't really matter now for me because he offered something better than a bad haircut: a good performance.
Good performance YES
Bond performance NO
Sorry you feel that way Skywalker.

No need to apologise. It wasn't your fault Stock.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:30 pm

Funny how some people litterally take the "I'm sorry" remark than simply acknowledging it as another way of saying "I pity you".

Post by **Skywalker** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:33 pm

stockslivevan wrote:Funny how some people litterally take the "I'm sorry" remark than simply acknowledging it as another way of saying "I pity you".

Cause I knew you weren't taking pity.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:35 pm

Skywalker wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:Funny how some people litterally take the "I'm sorry" remark than simply acknowledging it as another way of saying "I pity you".
Cause I knew you weren't taking pity.

Don't be too sure.

Post by **Skywalker** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:39 pm

stockslivevan wrote:
Skywalker wrote:
stockslivevan wrote:Funny how some people litterally take the "I'm sorry" remark than simply acknowledging it as another way of saying "I pity you".
Cause I knew you weren't taking pity.
Don't be too sure.

I take it back.

Your the tiereny of evil men.

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:41 pm

I try.

Post by **Skywalker** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:43 pm

stockslivevan wrote:I try.

Real hard?

stockslivevan · Post by **stockslivevan** » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:46 pm

To be the shepherd or pointlessly posting?

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 1:52 am

bjmdds wrote:Nash, I saw Bond films in the theatres before you were probably born, many years prior to Brosnan's films.. To not like CR does not mean someone is not a Bond fan. If you feel this is a waste of time and could care less what I say, do yourself a big favor and post elsewhere and end your misery.

There you go again, you have no idea what age I am yet have decided you're the grandaddy of Bond knowledge, and any true fan would at least try and accept the actor playing there so called favourite character. If it really was so hard on you, you really would've boycotted the film and left the Bond films be untill a more suitable actor (in your opinion) was found. And on one final note, untill the powers that be decide when and where I can post, this is a public forum, where members are given the right to and opinion, this is not your thread to tell me not to post here mate. You can't dictate where someone posts.

Post by **bjmdds** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:17 am

Captain Nash wrote:
bjmdds wrote:Nash, I saw Bond films in the theatres before you were probably born, many years prior to Brosnan's films.. To not like CR does not mean someone is not a Bond fan. If you feel this is a waste of time and could care less what I say, do yourself a big favor and post elsewhere and end your misery.
There you go again, you have no idea what age I am yet have decided you're the grandaddy of Bond knowledge, and any true fan would at least try and accept the actor playing there so called favourite character. If it really was so hard on you, you really would've boycotted the film and left the Bond films be untill a more suitable actor (in your opinion) was found. And on one final note, untill the powers that be decide when and where I can post, this is a public forum, where members are given the right to and opinion, this is not your thread to tell me not to post here mate. You can't dictate where someone posts.

If you do not care what I say, then why even respond, mate?

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:53 am

Because I'm not going to let you dictate where I post.
Mate!
Come on you love it really. You love the attention you get.
Without members like me you're life would be boring.

Post by **bjmdds** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:04 pm

Captain Nash wrote:Because I'm not going to let you dictate where I post.
Mate!
Come on you love it really. You love the attention you get.
Without members like me you're life would be boring.

You certainly are interesting, and knowledgeable about Bond. Looking forward to Spiderman 3 in 2 weeks, and Bourne 3 in 4 months?

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:42 pm

Bourne I'm not so interested in. But I'm sure I'll take a look at Spidey 3, though to be honest it's not looking so great from what I see in the trailer. I'm looking forward to Die Hard 4.0 to see what they've done. The trailer looks action packed (lots of cgi) but we'll see. And of course The Simpsons movie should get a look in aswell. After that of course they'll be Bond 22, but thats a while away at present.
Really there's not to much that'll get me excited on the radar so far as the major studios are concerned. I like those surprise movies that come along every now and then. Little Miss Sunshine was one such movie from last year that I found interesting, or The Last King Of Scotland. Two very good films.

Post by **bjmdds** » Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:36 am

In 2008 we get Indy 4, Batman II, Hulk, Bond 22, and Iron Man. This summer, I am very interested to see if The Bourne Ultimatum tops Bourne 2 at the box office, in the USA mostly, for it is not such an international hit as Bond, not yet anyway. It's success or failure could influence Barbara Broccoli again. I bet she and MGW purchase a ticket and view it for ideas and comparison.