The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

Post by **The Sweeney** » Wed May 30, 2007 9:10 pm

bjmdds wrote:
carl stromberg wrote:Oh, I wish I could go back to the hate-filled spring/summer of 2006.
Just wait until Summer 2008 to roll around Carl. Round one went to Craig/Eon. Round two may be quite different, and even more intense!

I have to say, I'm looking forward to summer 2008 too, just so we all have something more to debate/talk about.

Terry · Post by **Terry** » Wed May 30, 2007 10:26 pm

What happened to Frosty? I'm suprised he hasn't appeared here yet. Someone put an SOS call out.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Thu May 31, 2007 2:27 am

Who's Frosty?
And maybe he has.
At present there seem to be an awful lot of members registered, but not too many posting. Same thing happens at Mi6. Although there are considerably less regular posters here.
I think the biggest put off for many is the name of the site. But of course that's the whole point.

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu May 31, 2007 2:27 am

The Sweeney wrote:
bjmdds wrote:
carl stromberg wrote:Oh, I wish I could go back to the hate-filled spring/summer of 2006.
Just wait until Summer 2008 to roll around Carl. Round one went to Craig/Eon. Round two may be quite different, and even more intense!
I have to say, I'm looking forward to summer 2008 too, just so we all have something more to debate/talk about.

Don't worry, we will find plenty to talk about during the intermission between Bond films.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Thu May 31, 2007 2:34 am

Like what bj?
Any ideas? Because this whole Craig is great, no he's not, crap is getting tedious. You must agree?
I think we all get it now, and all have our differing opinions that can be discussed, but are taking up all of the topics and conversations out there. And not only on this forum but others too.
Can we talk about something else for a while?

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu May 31, 2007 2:49 am

When would be the proper time to replace Dench,in her retro mindset, as M, and should the next M be a man, or should they choose another woman?

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Thu May 31, 2007 3:29 am

Well lets take it that Daniel Craig will make three Bond films. It would seem likely that she could step down at the end of his tenure, leaving the path clear for a new Bond and new M.
Or they could kill her off at the end of Bond 22 or beginning of Bond 23, and make Bond 23 a hunt for her killer/s.

As for replacement, I'd like to see a male M again. Nothing against Dame Judi she's done a fantastic job in the role, or for a woman to be cast as M, but after say 15 years with a female M, a man as Bonds boss would be fine with me. Either is good.

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu May 31, 2007 10:08 pm

Captain Nash wrote:Well lets take it that Daniel Craig will make three Bond films. It would seem likely that she could step down at the end of his tenure, leaving the path clear for a new Bond and new M.
Or they could kill her off at the end of Bond 22 or beginning of Bond 23, and make Bond 23 a hunt for her killer/s.
As for replacement, I'd like to see a male M again. Nothing against Dame Judi she's done a fantastic job in the role, or for a woman to be cast as M, but after say 15 years with a female M, a man as Bonds boss would be fine with me. Either is good.

Not a bad concept at all Nash. Having her killed off as say, Teresa was at the end of OHMSS, would set up the following film nicely. It seems the storylines may now truly overlap,yet unusual since CR was out of sequence of the cinematic Bond.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Thu May 31, 2007 10:25 pm

It's not clear yet whether Bond 23 will follow on from Bond 22. But continuity has never been high on Eons agenda. Just a line about Tracy here and there to tie it all very loosely together. Only Moore and Dalton can be linked to Tracy be reference. Connery is presumably seeking revenge for her death in DAF, but she's not mentioned. And Brosnan is asked if he's ever lost anyone, and he looks uneasy. But again no names are given, perhaps he's thinking of Paris Carver from the previous film.
I'd like to see a little more background to the new films, with proper continuity. Maybe a reference to events of CR in 22 or 23.

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:28 am

It is truly amazing that despite of a lack of continuity in the Bond saga of 21 films, excluding NSNA, the public was never outraged. Storylines were never the key ingredient. Action and beautiful women and gadgets were the driving forces behind the success of the films. Now, those concepts are out the window, yet the public still wants more of Bond. I could never understand how Blofeld and Bond not knowing each other in OHMSS was tolerated by the public after YOLT.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:45 am

That's quite true bj. Take a film like FRWL and then MR, two completely different Bond films, or even DAD and CR, both very different, but the public lap it up.
I think part of the reason, is that Bond no matter what is unique.
You always get a fun film that's enjoyable to a varied audience. Even the worst of the films no matter how you rank them are better than many other films. And we all know what to expect to a certain degree. We may not agree on what films are good and what are not, but there's something in the character or films that draws not only fans in, but everyone else too. OO7 is truly massive, and enjoyed by so many people. He's legendary.

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 2:03 pm

"If you show Bond....they will come".....Seems to work every time, except for LTK, which bombed compared to the rest of the films.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:22 pm

But it still has a healthy following. Many people believe OHMSS was a failure, but it's not the case. It too is considered one of the best films in the series. By myself too.
LTK still made money, but had an almost non-existant ad campaign, a very different Bond to the one we'd seen before, a higher rating prohibiting a huge chunk of Bonds audience from seeing it, and released in the middle of the summer bloodbath against films like Leathal Weapon 2, Batman and Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade. Even a poorly executed Bond film finds it hard sometimes.
Too bad though, Dalton was a great Bond and two or three more films from him would've been most welcome. I don't think he was fired from the role, because of LTK, Danjaq was going through a difficult time, and lots of behind the scenes politics had to be cleaned up, before another Bond film could be made. I recall an anouncement in a 1993 edition of Empire magazine stating that Dalton would be returning to the role, and that Michael France was working on a script. By 1994 though Dalton had jumped ship and moved on. Like I said a shame.

Post by **Kristatos** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:41 pm

Captain Nash wrote:I don't think he was fired from the role because of LTK

No, after all, they didn't fire Moore after TMWTGG did comparatively poorly at the box office. And I believe Cubby wanted him for Goldeneye, but he declined.

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:25 pm

When I saw LTK in the theatres in 1989 I still remember that the critics viewed it as a 'different' storyline Bond, one where he quits the British service and chases a drug lord. The critics also called it a more violent Bond. I guess Bond's violence has evolved in 18 years. The Sweeney thinks 9/11 was the catalyst. DAD was released in 2002, and it did not reflect the Sweeney theory. I still feel that the television success of Bauer's 24 and the film success of the Bourne saga was, and is,the impetus for the gritty, serious,and more graphically violent Bond, which was not embraced at the box office in 1989. One point about LTK;what the heck was Wayne Newton doing in a Timothy Dalton interpretation as Bond? I cringe every time I see him say, "Bless your heart"......

paco chaos · Post by **paco chaos** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:25 pm

Kristatos wrote:
Captain Nash wrote:I don't think he was fired from the role because of LTK
No, after all, they didn't fire Moore after TMWTGG did comparatively poorly at the box office. And I believe Cubby wanted him for Goldeneye, but he declined.

I was always under the impression that Dalton left the series because there had been a 6 year gap between films, and he didn't want to be too old in the part. the 6 year gap had to do with MGM/UA going bankrupt and Ted Turner's attempt at buying it. I always wanted to see more from Dalton, and was disapointed when he left, but thought he was a class act for leaving before he looked too old. LTK was great inmho.

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:31 pm

You still had 'Dentonite' toothpaste in a Dalton Bond film. Would Craig ever allow himself to utilize such a substance in his Bond film?

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:34 pm

Kristatos wrote:
Captain Nash wrote:I don't think he was fired from the role because of LTK
No, after all, they didn't fire Moore after TMWTGG did comparatively poorly at the box office. And I believe Cubby wanted him for Goldeneye, but he declined.

Lazenby in only one film and Dalton in only two, will both still go down in Bond history as the unsuccessful actors in the saga, that is just the way it is to the 'general' public.

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 2:35 am

But it's not the way many of the fans see both Lazenby or Dalton. I wonder why that is?
OHMSS and TLD both rank very highly for me.
As for the 'dentonite' toothpaste, I'm not sure what Daniel Craig would do. If it was worked into the story then yes I'm sure he would. Actually how much script / story approval would he have? Not alot I would think. I'm sure he can make suggestions, but how fat they go it's unclear.
Whether 9/11 or Bauer and Bourne are the reasons for the more gritty and realistic Bond is still an ongoing debate. Maybe it's both, but no matter what James Bond will continue. Should the film going puplic tire of this approach (and they will) a Bond that has all the over the top sets and storylines will return. With a joke after every death or near miss, and all the other trimmings. Just because we have a different interpration at present doesn't mean it will stay like this forever.
Myself I like this style, but if they go back to the old Bond then that's fine too. And likewise with Craig, at first I was skeptical, but he delivered the goods for me, and I think he's great. But I also thought Brosnan was great too. And Dalton and Moore and Lazenby and of course Connery.
Craig's casting may have been a radical change to the norm, but it's still been one that (thus far) the public has liked. We can talk about the next film (Bond 22) untill we're blue in the face. Will it be a success? Will Craig still be popular? Was CR a one hit wonder? It's all in the future. And cannot be answered yet.
Cubby once said, so long as there's an audience, they'll be a Bond film.
And from the looks of things over the last 40 odd years, there's no hint of a loss of audience.

Post by **bjmdds** » Sat Jun 02, 2007 2:46 am

Hollywood, in general, mocks Bond I think to a degree, as if the films were never worthy of their 'precious' awards, it's actors nothing but second line,or unknowns, and it's storylines too over the top to be taken seriously. YET, what other Hollywood entity could EVER have lasted 44 years with 21 films in it's saga(not counting NSNA)? Bond is a phenomenol accomplishment and the ONLY film series worthy of the term LONGEVITY, in Hollywood history.