The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[ml94]

Craig is PUTIN, nothing else.

He actually looks quite a lot like Selma Hayek's husband.

"ANYONE IS BETTER CHOICE THAN CRAIG".

[Omega]

Anyone seen the new Mission Impossibe: Rogue Nation teaser....?

[BBvideo 425,350]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9UbBU-4mSI&app=desktop[/BBvideo]

[/quote]
Had not seen it. Looks promising


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Veronica]

Craig is PUTIN, nothing else.

He actually looks quite a lot like Selma Hayek's husband.

"ANYONE IS BETTER CHOICE THAN CRAIG".

Oh,believe me her husband is as bad as Craig but hey at least he's not supposed to play secret agent womanizer so everything's cool.

[ml94]

Craig is PUTIN, nothing else.

He actually looks quite a lot like Selma Hayek's husband.

"ANYONE IS BETTER CHOICE THAN CRAIG".

Oh,believe me her husband is as bad as Craig but hey at least he's not supposed to play secret agent womanizer so everything's cool.

Craigs wife is Rachel Weisz???

[Veronica]

Craig is PUTIN, nothing else.

He actually looks quite a lot like Selma Hayek's husband.

"ANYONE IS BETTER CHOICE THAN CRAIG".

Oh,believe me her husband is as bad as Craig but hey at least he's not supposed to play secret agent womanizer so everything's cool.

Craigs wife is Rachel Weisz???

Yeah,but what does that have to do with anything?

[ml94]

Just saying...

[Veronica]

Just saying...

She's out of his league,we all know that...but then again,who isn't?

[ml94]

Just saying...

She's out of his league,we all know that...but then again,who isn't?

Yeah.

[Atticus]

Thank you for posting this, I had seen it and meant to post it but then forgot.
So we're making a movie with the money of a government that is SO corrupt they have the country in the hands of drug cartels, which means this is a movie being made with drug cartels money. And I say this with a heavy heart and thanks to my Mexican friend whose father was a politician and had to stop or they'd have killed him, so I'm not being stereotypical or anything here... I'm worried and sad.
The situation in Mexico is TRAGIC and they give 20 million dollars to Bond?
By all means... guess the bad guys in the movie are actual ones in real life in this case.

Yeah, ultimately, it is a movie made with cashflow from drug cartels. And I'm not even sure to what extent Eon and Mendes could possibly put the country itself in good light. My wife and I have been to Mexico a few times and the poverty is so prevalent. Obviously, they'll be selective with the scenery, but still... Anyway, for me, that article from taxanalysts.com raises another disturbing thing. Even though it's common for "film incentives to come with strings attached," the studio is being too accommodating for the Mexican government. So now the government is heavily involved in casting decisions and script changes. As the article raises, to what extend do we want the government involved when making a movie? The nature of government is to overreach and grow and regulate. Open a little door, and it will not only enter but, in time, ram that door wide open. In the case of Spectre, maybe the opening credits will have something like, "The Government of Mexico and Albert R. Broccoli's Eon Productions present Daniel Putin Craig as Sam Mendes' Metrosexual James Bond 007 in Spectre".

[Veronica]

Thank you for posting this, I had seen it and meant to post it but then forgot.
So we're making a movie with the money of a government that is SO corrupt they have the country in the hands of drug cartels, which means this is a movie being made with drug cartels money. And I say this with a heavy heart and thanks to my Mexican friend whose father was a politician and had to stop or they'd have killed him, so I'm not being stereotypical or anything here... I'm worried and sad.
The situation in Mexico is TRAGIC and they give 20 million dollars to Bond?
By all means... guess the bad guys in the movie are actual ones in real life in this case.

Yeah, ultimately, it is a movie made with cashflow from drug cartels. And I'm not even sure to what extent Eon and Mendes could possibly put the country itself in good light. My wife and I have been to Mexico a few times and the poverty is so prevalent. Obviously, they'll be selective with the scenery, but still... Anyway, for me, that article from taxanalysts.com raises another disturbing thing. Even though it's common for "film incentives to come with strings attached," the studio is being too accommodating for the Mexican government. So now the government is heavily involved in casting decisions and script changes. As the article raises, to what extend do we want the government involved when making a movie? The nature of government is to overreach and grow and regulate. Open a little door, and it will not only enter but, in time, ram that door wide open. In the case of Spectre, maybe the opening credits will have something like, "The Government of Mexico and Albert R. Broccoli's Eon Productions present Daniel Putin Craig as Sam Mendes' Metrosexual James Bond 007 in Spectre".

[Atticus]

[quote="Veronica"]Ian's comment "blunt instrument" wasn't meant in a physical rambo way. Bond is more of a blunt instrument mentally. He is mentally "blunt". It's actually ironic how they justify everything with this yet say how Craig has an edge yet the definition of "blunt" is NOT being sharp or having an edge.."blunt instrument" is Bond's ability to kill when he needs to. He needs to be emotionless when he needs to do it. Completely blank when it comes to emotions. "Blunt instrument" was meant in that context./quote]

Good comment. I'm more of a fan of the Fleming books than the films. For me, the business about "the blunt instrument" always meant that Bond was a tool used by the government, a cog in the wheel, so to speak. A very impersonal treatment of this agent by the government, which is a massive bureaucratic machine. So, yeah, Bond has to be, as you say, "blunt" mentally and emotionally to carry out his missions. But for me, what makes Fleming's characterization interesting is the way he puts in the human touches without getting melodramatic. Bond is still a human being, so we get glimpses of his humanity. So those two aspects of him tend to clash--the blunt instrument angle and his humanity. The short story "The Living Daylights" is an excellent example. He can't help being attracted to the Russian sniper as he watches her through the sniper scope. At the same time, he's got a mission to do, and he knows what's expected of him, that he needs to be cold and detached and to just get the mission done. That's a very Bondian situation.

[Atticus]

Craig is PUTIN, nothing else.

He actually looks quite a lot like Selma Hayek's husband.

I started to watch a series on Netflix called "Nikita", and there's a character who I thought for moment was played by Daniel Craig. Never seen him before (the name is Xander Berkeley) but in the series he plays a government official. This dude also has that Craig-Putin style. He'd make a good stand-in for Craig.

[The Sweeney]

I'm more of a fan of the Fleming books than the films. For me, the business about "the blunt instrument" always meant that Bond was a tool used by the government, a cog in the wheel, so to speak. A very impersonal treatment of this agent by the government, which is a massive bureaucratic machine. So, yeah, Bond has to be, as you say, "blunt" mentally and emotionally to carry out his missions. But for me, what makes Fleming's characterization interesting is the way he puts in the human touches without getting melodramatic. Bond is still a human being, so we get glimpses of his humanity. So those two aspects of him tend to clash--the blunt instrument angle and his humanity. The short story "The Living Daylights" is an excellent example. He can't help being attracted to the Russian sniper as he watches her through the sniper scope. At the same time, he's got a mission to do, and he knows what's expected of him, that he needs to be cold and detached and to just get the mission done. That's a very Bondian situation.

Glad to see we have something in common, as I'm more a fan of the books than the films too.

What made the books entertaining for me was being inside Bond's head, knowing his thoughts, his tastes, his fears, etc. The travelogue and plot aspects happened around him, but we see it all unfold through Bond's own eyes. This is why the books are better than the films, IMO.

And yes, TLD is a great short story, Bond fancying a woman from a distance, who then has to assassinate her, and I was glad to see it was more or less adapted in full for the movie.

[ml94]

Craig is PUTIN, nothing else.

He actually looks quite a lot like Selma Hayek's husband.

I started to watch a series on Netflix called "Nikita", and there's a character who I thought for moment was played by Daniel Craig. Never seen him before (the name is Xander Berkeley) but in the series he plays a government official. This dude also has that Craig-Putin style. He'd make a good stand-in for Craig.

He was in T2.

[bjmdds]

Broccoli will spend TONS on a film and get financing ANYWHERE she can, as we are seeing, yet she does not want to pay her Bond actors a lot to start, which makes no sense.

[Veronica]

Broccoli will spend TONS on a film and get financing ANYWHERE she can, as we are seeing, yet she does not want to pay her Bond actors a lot to start, which makes no sense.

As far as I know she pays Craig huge amount of money.Well,she needs to keep him somehow around otherwise he would have left after Casino Royale.He said it himself.

[Veronica]

Ian's comment "blunt instrument" wasn't meant in a physical rambo way. Bond is more of a blunt instrument mentally. He is mentally "blunt". It's actually ironic how they justify everything with this yet say how Craig has an edge yet the definition of "blunt" is NOT being sharp or having an edge.."blunt instrument" is Bond's ability to kill when he needs to. He needs to be emotionless when he needs to do it. Completely blank when it comes to emotions. "Blunt instrument" was meant in that context./quote]

Good comment. I'm more of a fan of the Fleming books than the films. For me, the business about "the blunt instrument" always meant that Bond was a tool used by the government, a cog in the wheel, so to speak. A very impersonal treatment of this agent by the government, which is a massive bureaucratic machine. So, yeah, Bond has to be, as you say, "blunt" mentally and emotionally to carry out his missions. But for me, what makes Fleming's characterization interesting is the way he puts in the human touches without getting melodramatic. Bond is still a human being, so we get glimpses of his humanity. So those two aspects of him tend to clash--the blunt instrument angle and his humanity. The short story "The Living Daylights" is an excellent example. He can't help being attracted to the Russian sniper as he watches her through the sniper scope. At the same time, he's got a mission to do, and he knows what's expected of him, that he needs to be cold and detached and to just get the mission done. That's a very Bondian situation.

I remember that from the movie.Didn't read the book.Also,on the concert he commented "Lovely girl with the cello." I mean,I found it to be plainly ridiculous how Craiger say he is the closest to books yet you can obviously see from their comments how they never touched the books.And not knowing what "blunt" actually means is just...well the pro-Craig comments always seemed to be written by 12-year olds..but still...that's just embarrassing.

[The Sweeney]

Ian's comment "blunt instrument" wasn't meant in a physical rambo way. Bond is more of a blunt instrument mentally. He is mentally "blunt". It's actually ironic how they justify everything with this yet say how Craig has an edge yet the definition of "blunt" is NOT being sharp or having an edge.."blunt instrument" is Bond's ability to kill when he needs to. He needs to be emotionless when he needs to do it. Completely blank when it comes to emotions. "Blunt instrument" was meant in that context./quote]

Good comment. I'm more of a fan of the Fleming books than the films. For me, the business about "the blunt instrument" always meant that Bond was a tool used by the government, a cog in the wheel, so to speak. A very impersonal treatment of this agent by the government, which is a massive bureaucratic machine. So, yeah, Bond has to be, as you say, "blunt" mentally and emotionally to carry out his missions. But for me, what makes Fleming's characterization interesting is the way he puts in the human touches without getting melodramatic. Bond is still a human being, so we get glimpses of his humanity. So those two aspects of him tend to clash--the blunt instrument angle and his humanity. The short story "The Living Daylights" is an excellent example. He can't help being attracted to the Russian sniper as he watches her through the sniper scope. At the same time, he's got a mission to do, and he knows what's expected of him, that he needs to be cold and detached and to just get the mission done. That's a very Bondian situation.

I remember that from the movie.Didn't read the book.Also,on the concert he commented "Lovely girl with the cello." I mean,I found it to be plainly ridiculous how Craiger say he is the closest to books yet you can obviously see from their comments how they never touched the books.And not knowing what "blunt" actually means is just...well the pro-Craig comments always seemed to be written by 12-year olds..but still...that's just embarrassing.

I don't recall Craig ever saying he is closest to the books....?

[Veronica]

Ian's comment "blunt instrument" wasn't meant in a physical rambo way. Bond is more of a blunt instrument mentally. He is mentally "blunt". It's actually ironic how they justify everything with this yet say how Craig has an edge yet the definition of "blunt" is NOT being sharp or having an edge.."blunt instrument" is Bond's ability to kill when he needs to. He needs to be emotionless when he needs to do it. Completely blank when it comes to emotions. "Blunt instrument" was meant in that context./quote]

Good comment. I'm more of a fan of the Fleming books than the films. For me, the business about "the blunt instrument" always meant that Bond was a tool used by the government, a cog in the wheel, so to speak. A very impersonal treatment of this agent by the government, which is a massive bureaucratic machine. So, yeah, Bond has to be, as you say, "blunt" mentally and emotionally to carry out his missions. But for me, what makes Fleming's characterization interesting is the way he puts in the human touches without getting melodramatic. Bond is still a human being, so we get glimpses of his humanity. So those two aspects of him tend to clash--the blunt instrument angle and his humanity. The short story "The Living Daylights" is an excellent example. He can't help being attracted to the Russian sniper as he watches her through the sniper scope. At the same time, he's got a mission to do, and he knows what's expected of him, that he needs to be cold and detached and to just get the mission done. That's a very Bondian situation.

I remember that from the movie.Didn't read the book.Also,on the concert he commented "Lovely girl with the cello." I mean,I found it to be plainly ridiculous how Craiger say he is the closest to books yet you can obviously see from their comments how they never touched the books.And not knowing what "blunt" actually means is just...well the pro-Craig comments always seemed to be written by 12-year olds..but still...that's just embarrassing.

I don't recall Craig ever saying he is closest to the books....?

I didn't say you did.I mean other Craig fans-you can really read a lot of times that argument.

[ml94]

I think Dalton was closest to the books...