The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[FormerBondFan]

Marc Webb(???) with only an $80 million scaled down budget. Pascal sure knows how to ruin greatness, doesn't she?

How evil is this Pascal?

So oked Craig and the new direction in Bourne again adventures.But her choice for bond was Clive Owen or Brosnan back.

So It was Babs who corrupted Amy.

[katied]

Staing the obvious but Babs is *definitely* a bad influence.

[bjmdds]

I think Pascal gladly went along with Bore-occoli's pick. She should have exerted more influence but to be a part of the destruction of 2 franchises at once?

[bjmdds]

Webb has only done one full length film....most of the stuff he's done has been music videos.

This is all a joke now with Eon's selections, almost comical, but sad for the franchise.

[FormerBondFan]

I have the feeling that Babs has corrupted the reboot concept.

[Kristatos]

But her choice for bond was Clive Owen or Brosnan back.

Well since Clive doesn't want to be Bond, it looks like if Babs had listened to Amy Pascal, we could have that parallel Earth, non-reboot CR with Pierce which I list among my favourite (theoretical) Bond films. Seriously, I would have been among the cheerleaders for that film along with the fanboys at MI6 and CBn. But it seems the hereditary principle trumps filmmaking experience in the world of Bond.

[FormerBondFan]

But her choice for bond was Clive Owen or Brosnan back.

Well since Clive doesn't want to be Bond, it looks like if Babs had listened to Amy Pascal, we could have that parallel Earth, non-reboot CR with Pierce which I list among my favourite (theoretical) Bond films. Seriously, I would have been among the cheerleaders for that film along with the fanboys at MI6 and CBn. But it seems the hereditary principle trumps filmmaking experience in the world of Bond.

But instead Pascal had her mind corrupted by Babs' evil.

[Mazer Rackham]

But her choice for bond was Clive Owen or Brosnan back.

Well since Clive doesn't want to be Bond, it looks like if Babs had listened to Amy Pascal, we could have that parallel Earth, non-reboot CR with Pierce which I list among my favourite (theoretical) Bond films. Seriously, I would have been among the cheerleaders for that film along with the fanboys at MI6 and CBn. But it seems the hereditary principle trumps filmmaking experience in the world of Bond.

The studio heads in face to face meetings were asking Brozza to come back a scant few weeks before Eon announced the seasick darling object of Bab's affections. At the time Brazza told them that it was not up to him, i.e he was willing to come back and he did in fact keep he schedule clear enough to make another Bond if so asked.

Sony on their own would have not cast Craig, they fought it to an extent. Craig had a 24 hour screen test with the head honchos at Sony supposedly watching before Craig finally told Babs he had enough. Even Mikey the poor abused stepchild in this situation didn't want Craig, however a clause in their contract with the studio written way back gave Eon (Babs) the final word on casting.
Their were things they could have done like refusing to fund the movie, but that might have been moot as Babs might have been happy to fritter away her time at the theater as per her usual.


The situation then wasn't unlike today, Sony had helped bail out MGM so their prize was the Bond and a few others they thought they could make money on. Once they got in involved they pushed production ahead quickly, they knew their time was limited wanted to squeeze out as much cash out of the assets they had rights to as fast as possible.

Without Sony Craig would have had a much more difficult time, not they they particularly like him in fact he hasn't done a Sony picture since Layer Cake.
Once it was done Craig was cast and once the bad initial bad reaction stung all those involved Sony started working on the reporters, doubly so with their own viral marketing campaign once a true fan led movement started at the grass roots level. Neither MGM nor the Dynamic Duo running Eon had/have a clue on public manipulation, not to the perfected level Sony does. Without their skillful manipulation of the mood of reporters, the right encouragement at people in the right places, making sure reporters were talking to the "right" people it would have been a different story, perhaps one actually framed around the true heart of all the dissent:
A. The Authors actual intent
&
B. the public's expectations vis-a-vis 40 years of movies and the James Bond 007 image


On those two counts no question CR fails because it is NOT a Bond film and Craig failed because he never actually portrays Bond in CR nor in Quark.

[katied]

This is all a joke now with Eon's selections, almost comical, but sad for the franchise.

I doubt they could get much worse than Forster..hiring Tamawhorey again,perhaps?

[The Sweeney]

Without their skillful manipulation of the mood of reporters, the right encouragement at people in the right places, making sure reporters were talking to the "right" people it would have been a different story, perhaps one actually framed around the true heart of all the dissent:
A. The Authors actual intent
&
B. the public's expectations vis-a-vis 40 years of movies and the James Bond 007 image


On those two counts no question CR fails because it is NOT a Bond film and Craig failed because he never actually portrays Bond in CR nor in Quark.

Partly true, I agree with some of that above.

Mazer, do you think CR was a success though, both in terms of BO taking and critical acclaim, or do you think it was a flop?

[JackWade CIA]

The studio heads in face to face meetings were asking Brozza to come back a scant few weeks before Eon announced the seasick darling object of Bab's affections. At the time Brazza told them that it was not up to him, i.e he was willing to come back and he did in fact keep he schedule clear enough to make another Bond if so asked.

Sony on their own would have not cast Craig, they fought it to an extent. Craig had a 24 hour screen test with the head honchos at Sony supposedly watching before Craig finally told Babs he had enough. Even Mikey the poor abused stepchild in this situation didn't want Craig, however a clause in their contract with the studio written way back gave Eon (Babs) the final word on casting.
Their were things they could have done like refusing to fund the movie, but that might have been moot as Babs might have been happy to fritter away her time at the theater as per her usual.


The situation then wasn't unlike today, Sony had helped bail out MGM so their prize was the Bond and a few others they thought they could make money on. Once they got in involved they pushed production ahead quickly, they knew their time was limited wanted to squeeze out as much cash out of the assets they had rights to as fast as possible.

Without Sony Craig would have had a much more difficult time, not they they particularly like him in fact he hasn't done a Sony picture since Layer Cake.
Once it was done Craig was cast and once the bad initial bad reaction stung all those involved Sony started working on the reporters, doubly so with their own viral marketing campaign once a true fan led movement started at the grass roots level. Neither MGM nor the Dynamic Duo running Eon had/have a clue on public manipulation, not to the perfected level Sony does. Without their skillful manipulation of the mood of reporters, the right encouragement at people in the right places, making sure reporters were talking to the "right" people it would have been a different story, perhaps one actually framed around the true heart of all the dissent:
A. The Authors actual intent
&
B. the public's expectations vis-a-vis 40 years of movies and the James Bond 007 image


On those two counts no question CR fails because it is NOT a Bond film and Craig failed because he never actually portrays Bond in CR nor in Quark.

Fascinating opinions Mazer. Is there anything more to them? Are you privy to facts the rest of us are not I do not remember hearing about the majority of what you list as a fact.

Not that what you are saying is unreasonable. I wish more who disagree with Craig would write their opinion as intelligently as you have. IMO a lot of here do not get what they were trying to do with CR which for what their intention was worked perfectly. Although I understand why some would be upset by such a radical change in Bond. Me, I am in the vast minority who thought CR was very good but the second part ruined it for me. This is why stand alone films are the way to go they made huge error in linking CR which could have been a fine stand alone with the excrement that is Quantum of Solace.

[Kristatos]

IMO a lot of here do not get what they were trying to do with CR which for what their intention was worked perfectly.

I think we all know exactly what they were trying to do, namely:

1) Go back to a more down-to-earth style of Bond movie after the over-the-top DAD (which I agree was probably necessary, and part of a pattern that has been repeated several times in the history of the franchise) and;
2) Jump on the reboot bandwagon started by Batman Begins. It's the latter most of us have a problem with, compounded by the fact that they changed the character of Bond to someone who bears little resemblance to either Ian Fleming's or Richard Maibaum's Bond. Casting a charmless actor who looks nothing like any of the previous Bonds was the final nail in the coffin.

[The Sweeney]

Although I understand why some would be upset by such a radical change in Bond. Me, I am in the vast minority who thought CR was very good

Vast minority on here, yes.

But you are in the vast majority outside of here (among the other Bond forums).

Also, the global reviews of CR were mostly very positive too.

[JackWade CIA]

IMO a lot of here do not get what they were trying to do with CR which for what their intention was worked perfectly.

I think we all know exactly what they were trying to do, namely:

1) Go back to a more down-to-earth style of Bond movie after the over-the-top DAD (which I agree was probably necessary, and part of a pattern that has been repeated several times in the history of the franchise) and;
2) Jump on the reboot bandwagon started by Batman Begins. It's the latter most of us have a problem with, compounded by the fact that they changed the character of Bond to someone who bears little resemblance to either Ian Fleming's or Richard Maibaum's Bond. Casting a charmless actor who looks nothing like any of the previous Bonds was the final nail in the coffin.

Completely understand and IMO there was no problem with James Bond as he had been for 50 years still the change was refreshing. The "Reboot" should have worked well, it didn't. And I'm man enough to admit it. The reason it should have worked is it was getting harder to find actors who can fit the Connery though Brosnan image. The upper crust mold was dying in Dr No and was just around for the sake of being around in Die Another Day. As I said in theory it all works, until that theory meets Quantum of Solace.

The change of a more crust of the earth vs upper crust just wasn't all the entertaining as it turned out.

They gave the whole image an updating to the 21centurey, different attitude towards women, less sophisticated, more ordinary. Bond was more an animal trying to fit in with the society (represented here by Her Majesty's government) it has been the popular trend of movies for the last 20 years. Came to pass that CR was a one off and they had no plan for trilogy or the very next movie. I do not think they can salvage this and ultimately Craig has to go and the reboot rebooted. Only this time a true reboot retelling all the stories again like Batman.

[JackWade CIA]

Although I understand why some would be upset by such a radical change in Bond. Me, I am in the vast minority who thought CR was very good

Vast minority on here, yes.

But you are in the vast majority outside of here (among the other Bond forums).

Also, the global reviews of CR were mostly very positive too.

Actually I meant I am in a minority in that I loved CR before Quantum. Obviously CR's new tone stuck home with a lot of people.
Casino Royale would have been a very fine movie if they had tied it up and not dragged it into Quantum of Solace. I can't get past Quantum
now and I really used believe in the new direction. To me a reboot of the reboot is well in order this time achieving a proper balance of new and old so everybody is happy

[katied]

Casino Royale would have been a very fine movie if they had tied it up and not dragged it into Quantum of Solace

This. People expect so much of Broccoli Cheese(Bond 23),and it's not going to live up to expectations. A lot of the fans want this, this and this, as part of the plot including making Quantum a pseudo SPECTRE.

[The Sweeney]

Although I understand why some would be upset by such a radical change in Bond. Me, I am in the vast minority who thought CR was very good

Vast minority on here, yes.

But you are in the vast majority outside of here (among the other Bond forums).

Also, the global reviews of CR were mostly very positive too.

Actually I meant I am in a minority in that I loved CR before Quantum. Obviously CR's new tone stuck home with a lot of people.
Casino Royale would have been a very fine movie if they had tied it up and not dragged it into Quantum of Solace. I can't get past Quantum
now and I really used believe in the new direction. To me a reboot of the reboot is well in order this time achieving a proper balance of new and old so everybody is happy

I think the producers and Craig are aware of the complete opposite reaction Quark got to CR. Rumours are Craig was not happy at all with the reviews of QoS, and so I think they will be very careful with Bond 23. I'm predicting a return to CR territory, with bits of the old formula thrown in for good measure - Q, Moneypenny, gadgets an' all.

[katied]

Rumours are Craig was not happy at all with the reviews of QoS, and so I think they will be very careful with Bond 23. I'm predicting a return to CR territory, with bits of the old formula thrown in for good measure - Q, Moneypenny, gadgets an' all.

Gadgets?Q?Moneypenny?If that's the case,then expect another divisive Bond film.

[The Sweeney]

Rumours are Craig was not happy at all with the reviews of QoS, and so I think they will be very careful with Bond 23. I'm predicting a return to CR territory, with bits of the old formula thrown in for good measure - Q, Moneypenny, gadgets an' all.

Gadgets?Q?Moneypenny?If that's the case,then expect another divisive Bond film.

Do you not wish to see things like this return?

[katied]

Do you not wish to see things like this return?

Hell.No. A step back, IMO.