The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[katied]

Unfortunately, DCINB is the only place where Babs and Mikey get called on their B.S. I wouldn't dare express such opinions elsewhere.

[bjmdds]

You mean the gangs at CB.net and MI6 still worship the rotten -egg?

[katied]

You mean the gangs at CB.net and MI6 still worship the rotten -egg?

Oh yes. That would explain why they don't want to hear any dissenting opinions about Daniel Craig over there.

[English Agent]

The scary part is that once QOS was filmed, and edited, and seen by Broccoli and MGW(if they even woke him out of hibernation), how could they possibly believe they had a hit on their hands?! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApKt-1-IInY It is incredible to most Bond fans pro and against the eggster that Bond 22 was even released as such trash. If we knew it, Eon should have KNOWN it, and scrapped the film entirely;however, they arrogantly believe the public will come out and see ANYTHING they call a Bond film. That's not the case anymore. Not only do they need a film to do great weekend one, but it needs repeat admissions to gross huge dollars. The writers and directors have failed this franchise for a long time, and Broccoli keeps bringing in more of the same junk for the next film. Forster was not a Bond director. Mendes is not a Bond director. Action, thrills, and suspense are the only criteria required to be a Bond director and writer. Also, cut out the political correctness and anti-USA/UK sentiment and liberal minded environmental BS already, in a Bond film. { I would agree that Michael G Wilson and Barbara had done a fine job producing Bond after the legendary Cubby Broccoli passed away but with the sudden and shock sacking of Pierce Brosnan in favour of that bland, boring, no sense of humour Craig and two very poor movies one wonders what is going on? OK those two bad pictures made tons of money (as did all of Pierce's films) but it seems they have sacrificed what was unique and splendid about 007 - now they are run-of-the mill! SHAME ON THEM!
TRUMPER007 11 months ago} Youtube post

Hi......been off air for a few days due to computer malfunction!

Anyway, reading your earlier post 'BJ' as highlighted above, it had also made me wonder what had gone on during the post production of 'QOS'.
We know that Forster was only given 6 weeks to edit the film in the summer of 2008 (he had mentioned at the time that Nolan was given around a year to edit the Dark Knight), and wished he had more time.
BUT.........when the first edit of the film was shown to the producers, i wonder what they really thought. Personally if i had been the producer, i would of been in shock.
Well Forster said he was then given another week to tidy up the film after the producers initial viewing, which makes me wonder, how bad the first cut of the film had been.
I recall MGW stating at the time that there wasn't enough time to do any changes to the film, which suggests to me that they privately weren't that happy...........then again i remember reading that the producers had offered Forster 'Bond 23'.
Thank god he didn't accept!
Personally, i think the studio and producers should of delayed 'QOS' for a few months, so the film could of been re-cut, plus they could of gotten someone to of recorded a better song.
It may of not improved the film storywise, but at least it would of made the film more cohesive to the viewing public and at least to of somehow being engaged to what was going on in the action scenes.

Obviously film making is a big money business, maybe it would cost a studio lots of money to pull a film (distributors costs?) and give it a new release date. BUT........other film companies have done this many times over the years, just to get the film right.....so why not EON?

As in all businesses , customers want their products straight away, but if the product is right but late, the fact that it was late is often forgotton.
BUT....if the product is delivered on time, but rubbish............then the customer never ever forgets!.........and in this case its the Bond fans!


EA

[Kristatos]

BUT....if the product is delivered on time, but rubbish............then the customer never ever forgets!.........and in this case its the Bond fans!

Actually, I'm less worried about the Bond fans, who will probably line up for Bond 23 regardless, as the casual moviegoers, who aren't as emotionally invested in Bond as the people here and on the other fan forums, whether pro-Craig or anti-Craig. I don't think any of us here want Bond 23 to be the last ever Bond film, but Joe Q Multiplex won't care, any more then he mourns the loss of any other dead franchise.

[FormerBondFan]

I don't think any of us here want Bond 23 to be the last ever Bond film, but Joe Q Multiplex won't care, any more then he mourns the loss of any other dead franchise.

It could be just temporary.

[English Agent]

BUT....if the product is delivered on time, but rubbish............then the customer never ever forgets!.........and in this case its the Bond fans!

Actually, I'm less worried about the Bond fans, who will probably line up for Bond 23 regardless, as the casual moviegoers, who aren't as emotionally invested in Bond as the people here and on the other fan forums, whether pro-Craig or anti-Craig. I don't think any of us here want Bond 23 to be the last ever Bond film, but Joe Q Multiplex won't care, any more then he mourns the loss of any other dead franchise.

'Joe Q Multiplex' ?..............funny name for a person.

True, we know what you mean 'Kris'...............it was probably Joe Q and his/her mates who enjoyed CR that went to see QOS. It was these people who paid to see the film, that prevented QOS from being a financial disaster, that it could of been.

EA

[bjmdds]

I don't think any of us here want Bond 23 to be the last ever Bond film, but Joe Q Multiplex won't care, any more then he mourns the loss of any other dead franchise.

It could be just temporary.

FBF, will Bilbo Baggins be a bigger hero in 2012 than Cr-egg's Bond? I was speaking with a guy who loves the LOTR movies and the books even more. He thinks Bilbo Baggins will be a HUGE hit.

[FormerBondFan]

I don't think any of us here want Bond 23 to be the last ever Bond film, but Joe Q Multiplex won't care, any more then he mourns the loss of any other dead franchise.

It could be just temporary.

FBF, will Bilbo Baggins be a bigger hero in 2012 than Cr-egg's Bond? I was speaking with a guy who loves the LOTR movies and the books even more. He thinks Bilbo Baggins will be a HUGE hit.

Bilbo's going to an ultimate action hero in 2012. Don't forget that there's Supie saving the world. Also, Disney's kid friendly monsters and also vampires will be roaming the theaters.

[English Agent]

Yep..........i agree, i can see the 'The Hobbit' being a huge hit also..........something upto the $1 bill mark worldwide.

[English Agent]

Right......back on onto topic.

As we dont know yet what the next Bond film will be like...and i know some of u dont care, due to Craig being in it, and you think he should be in some sort of 'House of Wax' film.

Well lets skip that for a moment, and look a little further ahead....say the next Bond actor meets with approval with the members here, but the question is, the success of any future Bond will still be determined by the direction of the series taken by EON.

What type of Bond film do people want to see???

EA

[bjmdds]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC73PHdQ ... re=related Who knew then?

[katied]

Better villains.Not the crappy ones we've had for the last few movies.


Better writing.



New actor(obviously! )

[Mazer Rackham]

Hi......been off air for a few days due to computer malfunction!

Anyway, reading your earlier post 'BJ' as highlighted above, it had also made me wonder what had gone on during the post production of 'QOS'.
We know that Forster was only given 6 weeks to edit the film in the summer of 2008 (he had mentioned at the time that Nolan was given around a year to edit the Dark Knight), and wished he had more time.
BUT.........when the first edit of the film was shown to the producers, i wonder what they really thought. Personally if i had been the producer, i would of been in shock.
Well Forster said he was then given another week to tidy up the film after the producers initial viewing, which makes me wonder, how bad the first cut of the film had been.
I recall MGW stating at the time that there wasn't enough time to do any changes to the film, which suggests to me that they privately weren't that happy...........then again i remember reading that the producers had offered Forster 'Bond 23'.
Thank god he didn't accept!
Personally, i think the studio and producers should of delayed 'QOS' for a few months, so the film could of been re-cut, plus they could of gotten someone to of recorded a better song.
It may of not improved the film storywise, but at least it would of made the film more cohesive to the viewing public and at least to of somehow being engaged to what was going on in the action scenes.

Obviously film making is a big money business, maybe it would cost a studio lots of money to pull a film (distributors costs?) and give it a new release date. BUT........other film companies have done this many times over the years, just to get the film right.....so why not EON?

As in all businesses , customers want their products straight away, but if the product is right but late, the fact that it was late is often forgotton.
BUT....if the product is delivered on time, but rubbish............then the customer never ever forgets!.........and in this case its the Bond fans!


EA

Better to put it off for the end goal of makeinga better movie than do a lousy rush job, which happens. Studios sometimes have a contractual time limit to get production moving, Superman franchise is one of them.

Problem with Quark was not limited to the Director and his editorial choices. I might even go as far as arguing Quarks butchered Bourne wannabe editing was not as bad as all that. Although it does seem to stick with the causal viewer. One of the common complainants about the movie is the confusing editing.
My problem with it goes beyond the bad song, bad editing and bad acting at some junctures and to the heart of the problem -the script. More over its treatment of Bond which Craig had huge input in. What a miserable POS they decided Bond must be, early indications are this theme is going to continue in Bond 23 -Doomsday Machine. Mendes is hand picked by Craig who thinks the problem with Quark was nobody got the intricate, nuanced, moody performance he regurgitated. Obviously the directors failing.

People talk about how Brozza wanted to do a more "real" take on Bond, however if he had wanted to wander off in the lost in the moody darkness the fanbase would have revolted and producers would have prevented him from holding Blofeld's skull and launching into Shakespearean tirades. There doesn't seem to be any limits placed on Craig's whims. They produced Quark and were seeming pleased with it, then shocked at the bad reception. In fairness to them they did carry CR's miserable git of a Bond to the next logical place. Problem with Quark was there was not the proper framework surrounding it, for all its failings CR had started out life as a proper Bond film. Despite themselves the Bond trappings were still there.

[Kristatos]

People talk about how Brozza wanted to do a more "real" take on Bond, however if he had wanted to wander off in the lost in the moody darkness the fanbase would have revolted and producers would have prevented him from holding Blofeld's skull and launching into Shakespearean tirades.

I don't think he would have done, though. I think he maybe would have given him a few flaws, some more character depth, made him a bit closer to Fleming's Bond. But I can't see him dumping Mathis's body in a skip(I know we harp on about that scene, but if any one moment symbolises all that's wrong with Craig's Bond, it's that one).

[English Agent]

Hi......been off air for a few days due to computer malfunction!

Anyway, reading your earlier post 'BJ' as highlighted above, it had also made me wonder what had gone on during the post production of 'QOS'.
We know that Forster was only given 6 weeks to edit the film in the summer of 2008 (he had mentioned at the time that Nolan was given around a year to edit the Dark Knight), and wished he had more time.
BUT.........when the first edit of the film was shown to the producers, i wonder what they really thought. Personally if i had been the producer, i would of been in shock.
Well Forster said he was then given another week to tidy up the film after the producers initial viewing, which makes me wonder, how bad the first cut of the film had been.
I recall MGW stating at the time that there wasn't enough time to do any changes to the film, which suggests to me that they privately weren't that happy...........then again i remember reading that the producers had offered Forster 'Bond 23'.
Thank god he didn't accept!
Personally, i think the studio and producers should of delayed 'QOS' for a few months, so the film could of been re-cut, plus they could of gotten someone to of recorded a better song.
It may of not improved the film storywise, but at least it would of made the film more cohesive to the viewing public and at least to of somehow being engaged to what was going on in the action scenes.

Obviously film making is a big money business, maybe it would cost a studio lots of money to pull a film (distributors costs?) and give it a new release date. BUT........other film companies have done this many times over the years, just to get the film right.....so why not EON?

As in all businesses , customers want their products straight away, but if the product is right but late, the fact that it was late is often forgotton.
BUT....if the product is delivered on time, but rubbish............then the customer never ever forgets!.........and in this case its the Bond fans!


EA

Better to put it off for the end goal of makeinga better movie than do a lousy rush job, which happens. Studios sometimes have a contractual time limit to get production moving, Superman franchise is one of them.

Problem with Quark was not limited to the Director and his editorial choices. I might even go as far as arguing Quarks butchered Bourne wannabe editing was not as bad as all that. Although it does seem to stick with the causal viewer. One of the common complainants about the movie is the confusing editing.
My problem with it goes beyond the bad song, bad editing and bad acting at some junctures and to the heart of the problem -the script. More over its treatment of Bond which Craig had huge input in. What a miserable POS they decided Bond must be, early indications are this theme is going to continue in Bond 23 -Doomsday Machine. Mendes is hand picked by Craig who thinks the problem with Quark was nobody got the intricate, nuanced, moody performance he regurgitated. Obviously the directors failing.

People talk about how Brozza wanted to do a more "real" take on Bond, however if he had wanted to wander off in the lost in the moody darkness the fanbase would have revolted and producers would have prevented him from holding Blofeld's skull and launching into Shakespearean tirades. There doesn't seem to be any limits placed on Craig's whims. They produced Quark and were seeming pleased with it, then shocked at the bad reception. In fairness to them they did carry CR's miserable git of a Bond to the next logical place. Problem with Quark was there was not the proper framework surrounding it, for all its failings CR had started out life as a proper Bond film. Despite themselves the Bond trappings were still there.

I agree 'Mazer', the plot was the worst thing, all i was suggesting given the material they had filmed, it could of been modified to make it more viewable, and what story there was more cohesive.
Unfortunately, as its history now, people will have 21 good Bond movies in their collection, and one very odd fuzzy Bond film.

EA

[English Agent]

This of course applies to Bond first and foremost. Leaving aside Purvis & Wade, the people they hire to "polish" are colossal failures for Bond scripts. I do not know what was changed in QoS, but I think quite a few things, and I do not care how much people have praised Haggis: he did a LOUSY job with that one.

I think the script for QOS went through more rewrites than The Flintstones (John Goodman edition). To update an old Hollywood joke about that film, if an infinite number of monkeys is put in front of an infinite number of typewriters, you get the screenplay for QOS. They didn't even bother to keep track of the changes, it seems, hence things like Gemma Arterton being covered in oil even though the McGuffin in the film had been changed from oil supplies to water supplies.

The strange thing is 'Kris', is that after the general praise for CR, the producers wanted to release QOS in MAY 2008 (remember that?, and with a different director, who eventually left the project).
So, what i want to know is.......if the producers were ready to film QOS 6 months earlier than normal, then what was the state of the script then.......and how come the script as used for the film further down the line was not very good with an extra 6 months development on it.
Does that mean the original script was even worst, or was completely re-written. Does anyone know?

EA

[English Agent]

Regarding scripts...........this really is the bugbare for Hollywood on their big franchises.

Its happened to Bond before, remember TND, and Bruce Feinstein rewritting the script, as they were shooting. Fortunately, i think that film turned out pretty good in the end.

But you hear many stories of where the scripts were constantly being rewritten.
An example of this was 'Alien 3' ...........that film went thru' so many different rewrites upto the point, that millions of dollars of completed film sets had to be torn down, due to the changes in the script.

Just remembered, shouldn't of mentioned 'Alien', as it reminds 'BJ' of 'Cr...egg'

EA

[bjmdds]

Don't forget Cr-eggs and 'Aliens' due out soon EA. Oh boy, what a hit that will be after weekend one.

[katied]

But I can't see him dumping Mathis's body in a skip(I know we harp on about that scene, but if any one moment symbolises all that's wrong with Craig's Bond, it's that one).

No, I hate it too. I don't think Bond,book or otherwise, would have done something like that.But, to use an expression, "they went there". There are several "WTF?!?" momwnts in the Bond films..and quite a few of them are in QOS.