The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[Alessandra]

I know we have all been going on about how dismal the last film was, and commenting about the shenanigans with producers and studio.

BUT........Bond 23 should be a clean sheet of paper for them to start with again, like as for CR.

Unlike QOS, Bond 23 won't be a tack on film to a previous one.

Maybe.......we are being a bit pessimistic...........i mean EON can't make two duds in a row. Can they?

EA

Eon have made two duds in a role EA - Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace!!

Was about to say the same thing! Two non-Bond movies in a row, with a non-Bond as the protagonist. And the third one is coming along, whether the movie will be better than QoS or not, it still will be lacking the primary ingredient: James Bond.

It's not about being pessimistic, I do not know what they are or are not up to in detail so I only react based on what's been said. For sure the lineup doesn't look ANY different from the QoS one, so until I see something that indicates a DRASTIC departure from QoS (which is absolutely needed) I won't say this bodes well. Doesn't mean it WILL be bad, I sure hope it won't be anywhere near the horror that was QoS. Or the utter boredom that was CR. All I'm saying (along with others) is that what has been said so far indicates zero difference from what they did with QoS. And, that certainly doesn't account for a good Bond movie.

We were having this same exact type of discussion (on other boards as I wasn't on here) when QoS was released. All the pro-Craig people kept telling those who don't like Craig that they were being pessimistic, and they were downers blah blah blah. Except people who said it was going to be horrible were proven right. It may or may not be the case this time around but until the film is on screen, nobody can know. So saying "you're too pessimistic" can be countered with "you're being too optimistic especially given what happened with QoS". What I mean is, it's pointless. We all have our ideas and at this point there's no way to know whether anyone is being too pessimistic or too optimistic. From what has been said so far I have no reason to think Bond 23 will be any different from QoS. Doesn't mean that can't change.

[English Agent]

I suppose the one thing that keeps us fascinated with the Bond series and why it has survived so long (unlike other franchises), is that at the end of the day, apart from a few occuring Bond regular facets in the films...............we never really can guess how the next film is going to turn out in regards to story, direction and tone etc.

EA

[Alessandra]

I suppose the one thing that keeps us fascinated with the Bond series and why it has survived so long (unlike other franchises), is that at the end of the day, apart from a few occuring Bond regular facets in the films...............we never really can guess how the next film is going to turn out in regards to story, direction and tone etc.

EA

Yes I agree with that. They are at least good at keeping it all secret up until a certain point. So that of course generates curiosity and keeps us guessing.

[bjmdds]

A closed lip organization is what Eon is. They thrive on speculation and then they pay off magazines to plaster Cr-egg all over when a Bond film is due. How come Cr-egg is nowhere to be seen since QOS ended in terms of tabloid fodder and best this, best that? Did the universe suddenly not notice his ugly facial features? Broccoli is all about payoffs for publicity, only with QO Soul-less, she did not expect such poor reviews from her payoffs.

[katied]

Babs is the queen of payoffs.Can I prove it?Of course not. Babs wants Craig's "approval rating" to stay high.Good luck!

[bjmdds]

When Broccoli and the eggster were privately "screening" the first rough cut of QO-Soul-Less, what were they thinking? That they had a huge hit on their hands? Two morons in the balcony is what this is all about.

[katied]

When Broccoli and the eggster were privately "screening" the first rough cut of QO-Soul-Less, what were they thinking? That they had a huge hit on their hands? Two morons in the balcony is what this is all about.

Waldorf and Statler?

[bjmdds]

I know we have all been going on about how dismal the last film was, and commenting about the shenanigans with producers and studio.

BUT........Bond 23 should be a clean sheet of paper for them to start with again, like as for CR.

Unlike QOS, Bond 23 won't be a tack on film to a previous one.

Maybe.......we are being a bit pessimistic...........i mean EON can't make two duds in a row. Can they?

EA

Eon have made two duds in a role EA - Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace!!

They've made 4 duds in a row actually.....GE to DAD.

Sweene, do you accept Cavill as the 7th 007 and would you admit he is 100% the correct look for Bond vs. your idol Cr-egg?

[Alessandra]

A closed lip organization is what Eon is. They thrive on speculation and then they pay off magazines to plaster Cr-egg all over when a Bond film is due. How come Cr-egg is nowhere to be seen since QOS ended in terms of tabloid fodder and best this, best that? Did the universe suddenly not notice his ugly facial features? Broccoli is all about payoffs for publicity, only with QO Soul-less, she did not expect such poor reviews from her payoffs.

To be fair, a lot of production companies have that type of "publicity management". I just think she took it way too far with Craig, because obviously they knew he was going to create lots of controversy. Babs may have a crush on him but not everyone at EON is blind, let alone at MGM or Sony. They bloody well know he looks nothing like James Bond so I'm sure they arranged for "damage control". Just like many others do. Except they could and should have avoided all this... by casting someone appropriate

QoS was not something critics could find a way to defend en masse, because it was so d**n poorly executed they would all have looked like idiots. Of course some still praised it, but we know the vast majority butchered it (which is what the movie deserved. Just like the second part of DAD is ridiculous and that has to be said, the whole of QoS is and that has to be said, too.) So Babs's money was pretty much wasted in that case. Can't say I feel sorry for her

And, believe it BJ, I have read people who said that Cavill "isn't masculine" ( ) or, in other cases, "looks generic, can't be Bond, he looks too generic". Needless to say, they were all men.

[FormerBondFan]

Can't say I feel sorry for her

I want to see Babs fail at her own game.

[The Sweeney]

Sweene, do you accept Cavill as the 7th 007 and would you admit he is 100% the correct look for Bond vs. your idol Cr-egg?

Cr-egg....

Sorry BJ. That still cracks me up. Your last few posts have made me chuckle.

Yes, I would accept Cavill in the role. To be honest, I'd accept any actor in the role as Bond. The only issue/beef I really have is with the movie itself. I didn't like Brozza's 4 movies, that wasn't personally towards Brozza himself. I just didn't like the movies he played in. Stick Brozza in CR, and I would have still loved it.

I guess this is where we differ on our opinions. I get more annoyed with EON regarding the movie they make, rather than the actor playing him. It still irks me that Craig has blonde hair, when Bond really should be dark. I originally thought he was miscast in the role, but I was won over because I loved CR so much. Craig brought an essence to the part which reminded me of Bond from the books, but visually he is still not what I imagine Bond to look like from the novels....there again, none of the actors who played Bond really fit what I imagine in the books.....maybe that is because I imagine myself in the role.

That was actually Fleming's secret to the literary success, I think. He kept the description fairly vague throughout, and made the reader see the world through Bond's eyes, so the reader became Bond.

[English Agent]

In reply to the previous post..........and to why this site is obsessed with the visual aspect of BOND.

I know some of you read the Bond books, so........

Can someone here tell me what little information Fleming wrote in his books about the description of Bond. I suppose it would of been more than tall, dark and hadsome. Did the literally Bond have a scar on his body?

Personally, i have just followed the Bond franchise from the films only. I did once read OHMSS, but that was many many years ago.......about 1845 i think!

EA

[The Sweeney]

In reply to the previous post..........and to why this site is obsessed with the visual aspect of BOND.

I know some of you read the Bond books, so........

Can someone here tell me what little information Fleming wrote in his books about the description of Bond. I suppose it would of been more than tall, dark and hadsome. Did the literally Bond have a scar on his body?

Personally, i have just followed the Bond franchise from the films only. I did once read OHMSS, but that was many many years ago.......about 1845 i think!

EA

Bond was described as being tall, fairly slim, dark hair and cruel blue eyes (the only part which fits Craig). He has also has a scar down the side of his right temple. Some women thought he had movie star good looks, but usually in a cruel way. When SMERSH view a photo of him, they think he looks a nasty looking customer. When the girl in TSWLM first sees Bond, see thinks he is a villain.

But Fleming usually kept these descritions fairly loose and sketchy. I think Fleming's own interpretations of Bond doesn't actually fit with any of the actors, as he describes Bond looking like Hoagy Carmichael...

[English Agent]

Thanks

I've always believed that the cinematic version of Bond was a little adrift of what Fleming had envisaged his character to be, when he first started writing the novels in the 1950's...................but what works for the books, probably wouldn't work for the films i.e. a 50's charactor in the 21st century.

EA

[The Sweeney]

Thanks

I've always believed that the cinematic version of Bond was a little adrift of what Fleming had envisaged his character to be, when he first started writing the novels in the 1950's...................but what works for the books, probably wouldn't work for the films i.e. a 50's charactor in the 21st century.

EA

That's why I think EON got it spot on first time round with Connery. He didn't exactly tally 100% to Fleming's vision (Connery has dark eyes, not blue) yet he held an essence of the character which translated perfectly to the cinema incarnation.

Arguably I think Craig does to some degree too, but this is where I don't see eye to eye with most of the folk on here.....

[Alessandra]

EA, Fleming's first pick to play Bond was Cary Grant (Cary Grant rejected the offer for the role saying he was too old for the part), which says a lot about the type of handsome looks and charm Bond should have had. He didn't agree with Connery's choice because of his lack of style and refinement, but Young worked on him and made him a lot more refined, and in the end Connery won Fleming over.

I have big issues with an actor not looking the Bond part at all. I also have big issues with an actor who in my opinion doesn't fit the style and doesn't have the charm Bond is supposed to exude in general, and with women especially. And those are my big issues with Craig. I didn't have any of those issues with the previous actors, or if I had some issues (mainly just with Lazenby who had weird looks IMO, though that may be just due to the fashion of the time) they weren't anything major. I also think Bond movies worked and were entertaining because they all had specific ingredients that are now completely MIA, which is my big issue with Craig's movies too. I dislike his two movies a lot, and that's never happened to me to such an extent with the previous Bond movies. Basically, Barbara is crapping on the whole franchise and what her father created, and that doesn't sit well with me at all. Of course that's my personal idea about it. I want Bond to look the way he's supposed to, to act the way he's supposed to and to have the charm and the refined taste he's supposed to have. Craig's Bond has none of these traits, so at that point he becomes just a "whatever" action dude to me, and not Bond. Visual aspect is a super fundamental part when movies are concerned. It is actually the whole core of the business, so no, I won't overlook that for Bond or any other movie either.

The book aspect has been appropriately explained by Sweeney. Every book character needs to be adapted to fit a movie, I personally don't think they did anything all that different from the book description with any of the actors up until CR. Then Craig came over and I just don't see Bond or a Bond movie anymore, but a random action character who could be just about anyone.

[English Agent]

EA, Fleming's first pick to play Bond was Cary Grant (Cary Grant rejected the offer for the role saying he was too old for the part), which says a lot about the type of handsome looks and charm Bond should have had. He didn't agree with Connery's choice because of his lack of style and refinement, but Young worked on him and made him a lot more refined, and in the end Connery won Fleming over.

I have big issues with an actor not looking the Bond part at all. I also have big issues with an actor who in my opinion doesn't fit the style and doesn't have the charm Bond is supposed to exude in general, and with women especially. And those are my big issues with Craig. I didn't have any of those issues with the previous actors, or if I had some issues (mainly just with Lazenby who had weird looks IMO, though that may be just due to the fashion of the time) they weren't anything major. I also think Bond movies worked and were entertaining because they all had specific ingredients that are now completely MIA, which is my big issue with Craig's movies too. I dislike his two movies a lot, and that's never happened to me to such an extent with the previous Bond movies. Basically, Barbara is crapping on the whole franchise and what her father created, and that doesn't sit well with me at all. Of course that's my personal idea about it. I want Bond to look the way he's supposed to, to act the way he's supposed to and to have the charm and the refined taste he's supposed to have. Craig's Bond has none of these traits, so at that point he becomes just a "whatever" action dude to me, and not Bond. Visual aspect is a super fundamental part when movies are concerned. It is actually the whole core of the business, so no, I won't overlook that for Bond or any other movie either.

The book aspect has been appropriately explained by Sweeney. Every book character needs to be adapted to fit a movie, I personally don't think they did anything all that different from the book description with any of the actors up until CR. Then Craig came over and I just don't see Bond or a Bond movie anymore, but a random action character who could be just about anyone.

Ale...............Blimey

I understand your view precisely, and the other DCINB'ers too.
For you people, the core to your love of the franchise is the selection of what is regarded as the right candidate for the lead role, based on the descriptions of Bond in the books.
I too agree that DC was not your typical Bond candidate in regards facial features, but as long as the actor employed doesn't look like some sort of 'hideous baboon' , then i can live with that, as he doesn't look too far off the mark to be a Bond, and is also a good actor...but equally important is the quality of the films.

EA

[bjmdds]

Hideous Baboon? Put it this way EA, if Cr-egg was in a Tarzan remake he would NOT be playing the role of one of the humans! His Neanderthalic persona fits better with the jungle elements rather than the human elements, for sure. To even consider Cr-egg as an equal to a Cavill-type for Bond to me is ludicrous. Once the Babster plays the cougar role to Henry, Cr-egg will be gone UNLESS Cavill has taste and rebuffs her balcony advances.

[bjmdds]

Sweene, do you accept Cavill as the 7th 007 and would you admit he is 100% the correct look for Bond vs. your idol Cr-egg?

Cr-egg....

Sorry BJ. That still cracks me up. Your last few posts have made me chuckle.

Yes, I would accept Cavill in the role. To be honest, I'd accept any actor in the role as Bond. The only issue/beef I really have is with the movie itself. I didn't like Brozza's 4 movies, that wasn't personally towards Brozza himself. I just didn't like the movies he played in. Stick Brozza in CR, and I would have still loved it.

I guess this is where we differ on our opinions. I get more annoyed with EON regarding the movie they make, rather than the actor playing him. It still irks me that Craig has blonde hair, when Bond really should be dark. I originally thought he was miscast in the role, but I was won over because I loved CR so much. Craig brought an essence to the part which reminded me of Bond from the books, but visually he is still not what I imagine Bond to look like from the novels....there again, none of the actors who played Bond really fit what I imagine in the books.....maybe that is because I imagine myself in the role.

That was actually Fleming's secret to the literary success, I think. He kept the description fairly vague throughout, and made the reader see the world through Bond's eyes, so the reader became Bond.

Fun is the reason for being here Sweeney and I hope New Delhi is not too hot for you and your mrs. Will the UK ever see you back? Books are books. Once Connery set the visual screen image the mold was cast. Lazenby actually looked like Connery to an extent, but could not complete a second film. He was not awful in the role. The script was lame to me, but Georgie did look the part.

[katied]

Connery is pretty much iconic. I think Cary Grant could have done a great job,but being that he was too old we probably would not have had too many Bond films with him.

Not to diminish "The other fellas*" or anything!

*Less Craig.