The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[The Sweeney]

Because I disliked someone who looks like Craig being Bond, his height is annoying me more than it should.

Refreshing to hear this bit of honesty here, Gary....

[The Sweeney]

I don't agree. Craig's `shortness' (5ft, 11 isn't that short) doesn't come across at all in the film, IMO. And he is the most physically imposing since Connery - without doubt!

What about Lazenby, he didn't have a Hulked out body like Craig but he was like a lithe panther!
Even though he's not that high on people's JB lists he would come out on top in a brawl with the others, a trainer in the Aussie SAS and trained under Bruce Lee. Even Connery couldn't compete with that (and he's #1 for me like many) being a bodybuilder and stint in boxing.

I think Lazenby too is in the same league as Craig and Connery (as I corrected myself earlier).

I guess my only real problem with Lazenby was that he bordered on looking lanky, Basil Fawlty style.

[bjmdds]

I don't agree. Craig's `shortness' (5ft, 11 isn't that short) doesn't come across at all in the film, IMO. And he is the most physically imposing since Connery - without doubt!

What about Lazenby, he didn't have a Hulked out body like Craig but he was like a lithe panther!
Even though he's not that high on people's JB lists he would come out on top in a brawl with the others, a trainer in the Aussie SAS and trained under Bruce Lee. Even Connery couldn't compete with that (and he's #1 for me like many) being a bodybuilder and stint in boxing.

I think Lazenby too is in the same league as Craig and Connery (as I corrected myself earlier).

I guess my only real problem with Lazenby was that he bordered on looking lanky, Basil Fawlty style.

Was Lazenby mainly chosen due to his face and stature closely resembling Connery's in your opinion?

[The Sweeney]

I don't agree. Craig's `shortness' (5ft, 11 isn't that short) doesn't come across at all in the film, IMO. And he is the most physically imposing since Connery - without doubt!

What about Lazenby, he didn't have a Hulked out body like Craig but he was like a lithe panther!
Even though he's not that high on people's JB lists he would come out on top in a brawl with the others, a trainer in the Aussie SAS and trained under Bruce Lee. Even Connery couldn't compete with that (and he's #1 for me like many) being a bodybuilder and stint in boxing.

I think Lazenby too is in the same league as Craig and Connery (as I corrected myself earlier).

I guess my only real problem with Lazenby was that he bordered on looking lanky, Basil Fawlty style.

Was Lazenby mainly chosen due to his face and stature closely resembling Connery's in your opinion?

I would have thought so - yes.

[bjmdds]

To me, Lazenby looked as close to Connery as Bond as you could get without them being related.

[bjmdds]

His height is not that important probably: but it winds the pro-Craigers up! If someone who looked like Bond such as McAvoy was cast, then I wouldn't mind that McAvoy is a little too short.

Still not sure why they did not cast a tall, rangy actor who has the Bond look though. Maybe Barbara was not obsessed with any actors with the Bond look.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainm ... 561241.htm This is what floats Broccoli's boat these days. Craig looks nothing like Bond material, even here, but he promises The Bourne Mimicry:The Quantum Of Solace will impress viewers. Since when were 'action' and 'stunts' Craig's reason for making films?

[The Sweeney]

His height is not that important probably: but it winds the pro-Craigers up! If someone who looked like Bond such as McAvoy was cast, then I wouldn't mind that McAvoy is a little too short.

Still not sure why they did not cast a tall, rangy actor who has the Bond look though. Maybe Barbara was not obsessed with any actors with the Bond look.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainm ... 561241.htm This is what floats Broccoli's boat these days. Craig looks nothing like Bond material, even here, but he promises The Bourne Mimicry:The Quantum Of Solace will impress viewers. Since when were 'action' and 'stunts' Craig's reason for making films?

Bj, I can find nothing negative at all in Craig's comments there. You may not like his look - fine. You may not think he is suitable for the role - fine. But what is so wrong by what he is saying there. The film will have loads of action. Great. I thought that is what Bond fans wanted?

If Craig had said `the film will have hardly any action whatsoever, and will instead focus deeply on characters', would you be happier?

[stockslivevan]

If Craig had said `the film will have hardly any action whatsoever, and will instead focus deeply on characters', would you be happier?

Remember when he complained about the filmmakers promising some character development? It doesn't matter. BJ will bash the film regardless. Even if EON makes this film just about the same as his personal favorite Bond film, he'll trash it. Why? Because of Craig. That's BJ's motto: "If Craig's involved, I want everything to fail miserably."

This is a reaction to the soaring success of CR and the positive reception Craig received. Now the next film has to be a flat out failure for BJ's satisfaction. Even if it is a flat out failure, it won't matter. EON will move on with Craig to the third film, they won't dump him. By the release of Roger Moore's second film any person could have said Bond was dead by that point. Why not? TMWTGG was the most unsuccessful Bond film in the series, even less than OHMSS which was still suffering from bad word of mouth. Connery was still considered the one and only Bond by many fans too, Moore wasn't quite up there yet for people to find him a memorable Bond. But what did EON do? They moved onto the third picture with him and it paid off.

Whether you like it or not, Craig is Bond. You might as well try to make the best of it instead of acting like the sore loser. That doesn't mean you can't disagree with the casting, but at least try to look for a positive note. Oh right, I forgot BJ, you don't see any positive notes. Who am I kidding?

[Kristatos]

That's BJ's motto: "If Craig's involved, I want everything to fail miserably."

Not to mention Haggis, Forster and probably the guy in charge of catering.

[Kristatos]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainm ... 561241.htm

All I got was a blank screen when I clicked that link.

[Skywalker]

If the story is good and the performance of DC is more akin to the previous Bonds, then there is a decent chance I would enjoy QOS.

Continuity shouldn't be an issue like it was in CR, although let's hope DC's raw Bond is not continued.

[007]

From everything I've read and heard, QOS sounds more like a Pierce Brosnan film than CR.

[carl stromberg]

If the story is good and the performance of DC is more akin to the previous Bonds, then there is a decent chance I would enjoy QOS.

Continuity shouldn't be an issue like it was in CR, although let's hope DC's raw Bond is not continued.

I honestly think you'll enjoy the next one; everything I've read and seen so far suggests they have slipped nicely back into Brosnan Bond mode.

I saw an item on my local news (about Gemma) which showed lots of footage. The voiceover woman said this one has twice as much action and gadgets (although she is probably talking rubbish!). Daniel Craig looked about as much like James Bond as an oompah lumpah.

[Kristatos]

I honestly think you'll enjoy the next one; everything I've read and seen so far suggests they have slipped nicely back into Brosnan Bond mode.

Is that the sound of Sweeney sobbing I hear?

[bjmdds]

His height is not that important probably: but it winds the pro-Craigers up! If someone who looked like Bond such as McAvoy was cast, then I wouldn't mind that McAvoy is a little too short.

Still not sure why they did not cast a tall, rangy actor who has the Bond look though. Maybe Barbara was not obsessed with any actors with the Bond look.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainm ... 561241.htm This is what floats Broccoli's boat these days. Craig looks nothing like Bond material, even here, but he promises The Bourne Mimicry:The Quantum Of Solace will impress viewers. Since when were 'action' and 'stunts' Craig's reason for making films?

Bj, I can find nothing negative at all in Craig's comments there. You may not like his look - fine. You may not think he is suitable for the role - fine. But what is so wrong by what he is saying there. The film will have loads of action. Great. I thought that is what Bond fans wanted?

If Craig had said `the film will have hardly any action whatsoever, and will instead focus deeply on characters', would you be happier?

I was not negative, just reiterating Craig's statements about an action Bond film, which is exactly the opposite of what you and the lot at MI6 are longing for. If action is not OK with OTT scenes with Brosnan, why would it be suddenly acceptable now? Could it be a bias towards favoring the current thespian trying desperately to emulate a fictional literary iconic character he bares absolutely NO resemblance to?

[bjmdds]

If the story is good and the performance of DC is more akin to the previous Bonds, then there is a decent chance I would enjoy QOS.

Continuity shouldn't be an issue like it was in CR, although let's hope DC's raw Bond is not continued.

I honestly think you'll enjoy the next one; everything I've read and seen so far suggests they have slipped nicely back into Brosnan Bond mode.

I saw an item on my local news (about Gemma) which showed lots of footage. The voiceover woman said this one has twice as much action and gadgets (although she is probably talking rubbish!). Daniel Craig looked about as much like James Bond as an oompah lumpah.

This entire experiment with CR seems over. Action with OTT scenes will be prevalent, as was TBU with Damon. The problem still remains with the lead actor. He will be more stunt oriented than character driven it looks like with QOSTBM, much to the dismay of those desiring more CR psyche driven storylines. I wonder what Craig will crash through this film?

[bjmdds]

If the story is good and the performance of DC is more akin to the previous Bonds, then there is a decent chance I would enjoy QOS.

Continuity shouldn't be an issue like it was in CR, although let's hope DC's raw Bond is not continued.

I await your review as soon as you see it. Will Skywalker turn to the other side of the force and join those at CB.net and MI6? Stay tuned.

[bjmdds]

That's BJ's motto: "If Craig's involved, I want everything to fail miserably."

Not to mention Haggis, Forster and probably the guy in charge of catering.

Haggis and Forster will stand on the merits of their collective insights into what Bond should be.

[bjmdds]

http://www.bond22trailer.com/bond22trailer.html vs. http://www.harrypotter6trailer.com/harr ... ailer.html View the videos:Decide:Which will rule in the UK?

[Captain Nash]

Five posts in a row from bj.

Ever hear of the edit function.