The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[Captain Nash]

Seeing A Steady Rain isn't a flop makes me realize I should lighten up on Craig a little.

Craig as Bond is what it is all about here. As Gordon Gekko said to Bud Fox, "the rest is just conversation".

BJ you were the first to slam him when he took the 'steady rain' role.
The first to critisise on any of his non-Bond films not being as successful as you'd thought.
The first to generally dislike Daniel Craig in any way possible.
Pot - Kettle - Black.

[katied]

It's been proven that pretty much all of Craig's non-Bond films haven't exactly been hits.When he actually has a non-Bond hit film, then maybe we'll lay off of him

but that doesn't seem likely.

[oscartheman]

Seeing A Steady Rain isn't a flop makes me realize I should lighten up on Craig a little.

Why does it need to be a flop?The guy sucks as Bond let him make Star Trek films and ruin that for those fans as long as it gets him out of Bond.I don't think much of his other roles he seems to seek out turd projects.Fine.Whatever. Just let him earn a living well away from HMSS.

[katied]

he seems to seek out turd projects.Fine.Whatever. Just let him earn a living well away from HMSS.

He's not picky about his non-Bond films..The Invasion is a good example of this.

[bjmdds]

Let him play Peter Pan in a spoof and call it The Boy Who Grew So Old So Fast In Never Never Land . Hollywood.com last week reported Craig stating he will do Bond 23 but doubts he will do another one after that but would be thrilled if they did ask him. He turned down the role of Thor as well he admitted. How stupid are those producers to even think Craig could bring in the masses as Thor?

[oscartheman]

he seems to seek out turd projects.Fine.Whatever. Just let him earn a living well away from HMSS.

He's not picky about his non-Bond films..The Invasion is a good example of this.

Well that one was so bad they didn't release it until after he was given the role.Since then he has picked nothing but junk and seems to be working less.

[katied]

IIRC The Invasion had more than one director and quite a few of the scenes were reshot.

[mcbride007]

I like Daniel craig in other roles. He is just not suited for James bond.

[FormerBondFan]

I like Daniel craig in other roles. He is just not suited for James bond.

What about Craig in a Star Trek movie or TV series?

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

I like Daniel craig in other roles. He is just not suited for James bond.

What about Craig in a Star Trek movie or TV series?

Who knows, he may be asked to appear in the next movie.

[Mazer Rackham]

I like Daniel craig in other roles. He is just not suited for James bond.

What about Craig in a Star Trek movie or TV series?

Who knows, he may be asked to appear in the next movie.

I have heard rumblings, not more than out of school rumors when we come down to it that Craiggy has made noises about being in the next Trek. The problem is he that is not a commodity anybody besides Babs really wants.

Trek doesn't need Craig, Craig needs Trek. Unless he can bring something to it worth while he isn't worth the bother. All of the sagging movies he was brought in to boost crashed. So he is not a draw at the box office. Even in Bond he was supposed to bolster the demographic and get a younger audience in the stands while Eon put the rest of us who actually like Bond out to pasture. The fact he he doesn't have the draw of a Vin Diesel or Jason Statham, action actors whose names do draw an audience.

[Kristatos]

The fact he he doesn't have the draw of a Vin Diesel or Jason Statham, action actors whose names do draw an audience.

Well, I suppose, but it's a smaller audience than Bond's. I saw a report on this on Film 2009. It was saying that with one exception (more on him in a minute), there are no movie stars any more who can guarantee a mass audience, though there are genre stars like the two you mention. Furthermore, the industry speculators they spoke to didn't see this changing in the future. Their prediction was that Will Smith would be the last of the old-time movie stars, whose name above the title automatically adds a 9-figure sum to a film's box office.

[Mazer Rackham]

The fact he he doesn't have the draw of a Vin Diesel or Jason Statham, action actors whose names do draw an audience.

Well, I suppose, but it's a smaller audience than Bond's. I saw a report on this on Film 2009. It was saying that with one exception (more on him in a minute), there are no movie stars any more who can guarantee a mass audience, though there are genre stars like the two you mention. Furthermore, the industry speculators they spoke to didn't see this changing in the future. Their prediction was that Will Smith would be the last of the old-time movie stars, whose name above the title automatically adds a 9-figure sum to a film's box office.

Problem is the Bond audience isn't much bigger.

You bring up an interesting question: is it the stars that have changed, the way Hollywood makes movies, or the times and audience?
My money is on the Way Hollywood makes movies. They possess a unique talent for cutting their own throats in the long term for the sake of short term profit. One need look no farther than the video market to see how short sightedness has crippled that cash cow. I wouldn't be surprised if mismanaged talent in inappropriate movies kept everything back from the natural order of Hollywood movies and stars.

I remember when they were trying to push Skeet Ulrich as grad a talent. Now its the likes of Shia LaBeouf.
I don't think there is an actor out there than can do what Connery did with Bond. Hugh Jackman may be an exception, he too took a role that many were not expecting much from and exploded it on to the world's consciousness.

BTW I wouldn't be surprised if Sony were to fully buyout MGM that they'd push for a Will Smith Bond. They love him, can't say enough about him.

[bjmdds]

Will Smith is another mass delusion. Rap thugs that make it in films bring their core audiences on board. It does not say much for what people expect out of Hollywood these days too. Just look at what the new Planet Of The Apes film turned out like with another no talent lead actor.

[Kristatos]

Will Smith is another mass delusion. Rap thugs that make it in films bring their core audiences on board.

Will Smith is hardly a "rap thug" and if that was the sole explanation for his success then how come 50 Cent and Ice T don't enjoy equal levels of movie fame? Whether you like him or not, Smith is the only actor (I use the term loosely) left who people will go to see in any kind of film. Who else could have made The Pursuit of Happyness a number 1 box office hit? I don't know why he's such a huge star, and these things defy rational explanation anyway. You've either got that star quality or you haven't.

[bjmdds]

He cannot act. His television show was awful. Yet, this generation finds him a talent. Go figure. Heck, this generation defines Bond by Craig, so it is no surprise they find Smith enjoyable.

[Kristatos]

He cannot act. His television show was awful. Yet, this generation finds him a talent. Go figure. Heck, this generation defines Bond by Craig, so it is no surprise they find Smith enjoyable.

There are actors, and there are stars. Actors can portray a wide range of roles while stars are basically the same in every movie they're in, and that's what people pay to see.

[James]

http://www.crestviewbulletin.com/entert ... 838--.html

Oh, how we miss James Bond

November 11, 2009

I haven't seen a good James Bond film in the cinema in years. Other enthusiasts seem to share my opinion.

Stephen Oxenrider, a fellow James Bond enthusiast, sent out a YouTube link to a great song that had been rejected as the theme song to last year’s Bond film, “Quantum of Solace.” Visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg2dXY9TOKA and be dazzled—or chagrined that the fantastically Shirley Bassey-esque number by Eva Almer was passed up in favor of the racket bellowed by Alicia Keyes.

Stephen’s e-mail sparked quite a discussion among recipients, which soon turned to the recent bankruptcy filing of M-G-M, which owns half the rights to the Bond franchise. The other half is owned by Eon Productions, which makes the 007 films.

Finally I weighed into the fray:

“That Jason Bourne movie they called ‘Quantum of Solace’ sucked so bad it’s a wonder we weren’t all drawn violently out of the cinema. What a pity to waste one of the greatest of Ian Fleming’s Bond titles on a movie that bore no resemblance to a Bond film,” I wrote.

“One can only hope that when MGM/UA/Eon/Whoever get their acts together, they will budget enough money for the next 007 film to be able to afford tripods for the cameras and color film stock. Maybe there will be enough cash left over to purchase a good plot, too. (Maybe there’s one still on the shelf from the last production, seeing as none was used.)”

Now that wasn’t too editorialized, was it?

A nice, polite fellow named Tom Zielinski promptly responded.

“I too had issues with QOS…but to imply that it is not a Bond film is ridiculous. No disrespect here, but I’m curious. I’m guessing you’ve seen QOS but once and would prefer Roger Moore’s take on Bond?”

For one Bond enthusiast to imply another might “prefer Roger Moore’s take on Bond” is about as severe an insult as one PETA member accusing another of secretly owning a mink stole.

I hastened to reply:

“Yes Tom, I only saw QOS once. It was such an unpleasant experience that I haven’t been able to bring myself to even watch the DVD that I obligingly bought to complete the collection. The shaky, unsteady camerawork and the fast MTV edits actually made me queasy at some points,” I opined.

“Apart from calling one of the characters ‘James Bond’ and another one ‘M,’ I really didn’t see anything in that film that looked like a James Bond movie. It was absolutely no different than the last Jason Bourne movie: just a lot of bam! bam! bam!, cut! cut! cut!, loud explosion! loud explosion!, all at the expense of developing a coherent plot.

“The color was washed out and I can only surmise the camera must’ve been hand-held by someone with Parkinson’s who was off his meds the way it wobbled all the time, not that any one scene lasted long enough to actually allow any artistic camera use anyway.

“James Bond films have elegance, style and class. QOS had none of those attributes. It didn’t even have a decent theme song or a memorable score.”

Then, to address the insult:

“I still prefer George Lazenby as 007, and only wish he hadn’t been so head-strong that he didn’t let [Bond producers] Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman mold him to the role over several films. What a loss!

“Roger Moore was amusing, but I still prefer him as Lord Brett Sinclair in ‘The Persuaders’ over 007. But even Roger’s worst Bond film, ‘Moonraker,’ was eons (ha ha!) ahead of that sad tripe we were subjected to last fall.

“I recognize the series has to progress to remain relevant and attract new market share, and we can’t linger in the widescreen, Technicolor beauty and sophistication of the Sean Connery years — augmented, of course, by a lush John Barry score — but to completely abandon the elements that make a James Bond film a James Bond film is ludicrous, and in a way, insulting to movie audiences who paid for a Bond film.

“Lose those elements and you’ve no longer got a James Bond film. With QOS, Eon did — and we don’t.”

Today, according to one of the books, is James Bond’s 87th birthday. A new 007 film won’t come out until next fall at the earliest. Based on the recent past, I’m not to optimistic about what we’ll be presented in 2010. Meanwhile, thanks to the wonders of home video, we can still wallow in those halcyon days of the good Bond film. Those days when Bond was Bond, James Bond—and a Bond song was really a Bond song.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

http://www.crestviewbulletin.com/entert ... 838--.html

Oh, how we miss James Bond

November 11, 2009

I haven't seen a good James Bond film in the cinema in years. Other enthusiasts seem to share my opinion.

Stephen Oxenrider, a fellow James Bond enthusiast, sent out a YouTube link to a great song that had been rejected as the theme song to last year’s Bond film, “Quantum of Solace.” Visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg2dXY9TOKA and be dazzled—or chagrined that the fantastically Shirley Bassey-esque number by Eva Almer was passed up in favor of the racket bellowed by Alicia Keyes.

Stephen’s e-mail sparked quite a discussion among recipients, which soon turned to the recent bankruptcy filing of M-G-M, which owns half the rights to the Bond franchise. The other half is owned by Eon Productions, which makes the 007 films.

Finally I weighed into the fray:

“That Jason Bourne movie they called ‘Quantum of Solace’ sucked so bad it’s a wonder we weren’t all drawn violently out of the cinema. What a pity to waste one of the greatest of Ian Fleming’s Bond titles on a movie that bore no resemblance to a Bond film,” I wrote.

“One can only hope that when MGM/UA/Eon/Whoever get their acts together, they will budget enough money for the next 007 film to be able to afford tripods for the cameras and color film stock. Maybe there will be enough cash left over to purchase a good plot, too. (Maybe there’s one still on the shelf from the last production, seeing as none was used.)”

Now that wasn’t too editorialized, was it?

A nice, polite fellow named Tom Zielinski promptly responded.

“I too had issues with QOS…but to imply that it is not a Bond film is ridiculous. No disrespect here, but I’m curious. I’m guessing you’ve seen QOS but once and would prefer Roger Moore’s take on Bond?”

For one Bond enthusiast to imply another might “prefer Roger Moore’s take on Bond” is about as severe an insult as one PETA member accusing another of secretly owning a mink stole.

I hastened to reply:

“Yes Tom, I only saw QOS once. It was such an unpleasant experience that I haven’t been able to bring myself to even watch the DVD that I obligingly bought to complete the collection. The shaky, unsteady camerawork and the fast MTV edits actually made me queasy at some points,” I opined.

“Apart from calling one of the characters ‘James Bond’ and another one ‘M,’ I really didn’t see anything in that film that looked like a James Bond movie. It was absolutely no different than the last Jason Bourne movie: just a lot of bam! bam! bam!, cut! cut! cut!, loud explosion! loud explosion!, all at the expense of developing a coherent plot.

“The color was washed out and I can only surmise the camera must’ve been hand-held by someone with Parkinson’s who was off his meds the way it wobbled all the time, not that any one scene lasted long enough to actually allow any artistic camera use anyway.

“James Bond films have elegance, style and class. QOS had none of those attributes. It didn’t even have a decent theme song or a memorable score.”

Then, to address the insult:

“I still prefer George Lazenby as 007, and only wish he hadn’t been so head-strong that he didn’t let [Bond producers] Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman mold him to the role over several films. What a loss!

“Roger Moore was amusing, but I still prefer him as Lord Brett Sinclair in ‘The Persuaders’ over 007. But even Roger’s worst Bond film, ‘Moonraker,’ was eons (ha ha!) ahead of that sad tripe we were subjected to last fall.

“I recognize the series has to progress to remain relevant and attract new market share, and we can’t linger in the widescreen, Technicolor beauty and sophistication of the Sean Connery years — augmented, of course, by a lush John Barry score — but to completely abandon the elements that make a James Bond film a James Bond film is ludicrous, and in a way, insulting to movie audiences who paid for a Bond film.

“Lose those elements and you’ve no longer got a James Bond film. With QOS, Eon did — and we don’t.”

Today, according to one of the books, is James Bond’s 87th birthday. A new 007 film won’t come out until next fall at the earliest. Based on the recent past, I’m not to optimistic about what we’ll be presented in 2010. Meanwhile, thanks to the wonders of home video, we can still wallow in those halcyon days of the good Bond film. Those days when Bond was Bond, James Bond—and a Bond song was really a Bond song.

Interesting piece.

A nice, polite fellow named Tom Zielinski promptly responded.

“I too had issues with QOS…but to imply that it is not a Bond film is ridiculous. No disrespect here, but I’m curious. I’m guessing you’ve seen QOS but once and would prefer Roger Moore’s take on Bond?”

Yes. Anyone who doesn't like Craig's bizarre interpretation of Bond prefers "Roger Moore in an invisible car".

[James]

Yes, a very predictable response. They thought they'd won after Casino Royale came out and then Barbara snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with the now near legendary piece of shite known as Quantum of Solace. If that was Eon's idea of a James Bond film I suggest they sell the franchise and spare us any further pain.