The BJMDDS General Discussion Thread......

[Mazer Rackham]

[video]http://youtu.be/xJ4dAY3DW4c[/video]

Not a Bond movie.

[A Crag-like face]

I grew up on WWII adventure films like The Guns of Navarone and Kelly's Heroes and would love to see that genre revived. But I honestly don't see it happening. The crucial 18-35 audience simply isn't interested.

I'm not so sure. There are A LOT of people (guys especially) that age I know who are fascinated with that period in history. When's the last time the market even gave us a fun Navarone/Kelly's Heroes/Where Eagles Dare type of movie? The 1970s? If the idiots running the studios with their anally retentive targeted marketing don't make a movies in an entire sub-genre, then I can't voice my opinion by either watching or not watching.

Actually, the success of serious Saving Private Ryan movies and even twaddle like Pearl Harbor on the one hand and loopier and far less serioues stuff like Inglorious Basterds on the other makes me think there could easily be a solid market for World War II films. It just waouldn't be the NEXT BIG THING and earn a bizillion dollars, like Transformers did. But at this point, I'm guessing Universal wished they'd gone a less expensive World War II route and made a profit, rather than going the extremely expensive alien invasion route and losing a tidy sum of money.

And that teaser trailer for Skyfall . . . my God, it makes QOS' teaser look epically good!

[Alessandra]

[video]http://youtu.be/xJ4dAY3DW4c[/video]

Not a Bond movie.

Best and most succinct way to comment about it.

How they think this dude looks ANYTHING like 007 is beyond me. The worst part is that they had the chance to cast the perfect one and actually reboot the franchise with a YOUNG actor playing ROOKIE Bond as it was supposed to be... and instead of casting Henry Cavill who is bloody perfect (not to mention they'd find themselves with a goldmine now) they went for Daniel Craig. By the looks of this, though, I'm seriously worried it could tank the franchise for good. And I only want THIS to be disappointing but the franchise to go on with Henry Cavill, PLEASE.

And let's not even get into that first image of Craig in a prison suit looking like a SIXTY YEAR OLD UGLY DUDE who needs to eat a steak to regain a slightly healthy color on his face. If the pro-Craigers so much as TRY to sell this as "oh he DOES look the part" I'm going to laugh nonstop. And it doesn't even look like a good general action movie. It looks like one of those many action movies they tried to sell in the past couple of years that didn't work. And it's supposed to be JAMES BOND, DAMMIT.

I grew up on WWII adventure films like The Guns of Navarone and Kelly's Heroes and would love to see that genre revived. But I honestly don't see it happening. The crucial 18-35 audience simply isn't interested.

LOL my dad and my brothers watched those movies a countless amount of times when my brothers were little! But I agree, the vast majority of the 18-35 audience won't be interested in it. While some may be fascinated by the period, the majority just aren't. Wouldn't work. I think they should just have gone for an entirely different approach with Battleship. After Cowboys & Aliens miserably failed, they should have gotten the message.

[katied]

War movies and westerns are a universal language

[A Crag-like face]

And it doesn't even look like a good general action movie. It looks like one of those many action movies they tried to sell in the past couple of years that didn't work. And it's supposed to be JAMES BOND, DAMMIT.

Exactly. It lacks the appeal that CR and QOS had in their teasers. Also, I have a vague sense (just that, but enough of an intuition to share it here) that the public is tired of the emotionally troubled action hero. It had its phase in the 2000s and was, I suppose, a tonic for the overblown summer blockbusters of the 1990s that had zero characterization to them. But it went on far longer than it should have, probably because the trend started right around 9/11 and was carried along with the whole "War on Terror". But it's becoming absurd. Avengers is raking in money, and it has much more of a sense of fun about it. Iron Man has been incredibly popular, in large part due to that same sense of fun. I'll be interested to see how Dark Knight Rises does. I don't expect it to be the ridicuously massive hit The Dark Knight was, the real question is how much down will the gross be? Dark Knight Rises will be a hit, and will make a profit. People will be interested to see how the Nolan Batman films end. But how tired are people of the emo action hero approach, even when it's Bale's Batman? If Dark Knight Rises is well off of where Dark Knight was, then Skyfall may well have a problem, because Craig's Bond films not only ape the Nolan film's "rebooting", but the Skyfall teaser even copies exact shots from The Dark Knight.

[bjmdds]

Just saw the trailer. Considering it's supposed to be a collection of what's best in the movie? I'm

Do you believe what this has come down to? You want it to do decent box office to save the franchise. I say, and so does FBF, soon to be also FSTF if khan is on board, let it end now if this garbage carries on with Daniela, who is now relegated to word association testing as a depressed Bond Enough already I cannot take much more of this loser EA, what say yee across the pond? Sweene? He looks like he's auditioning for the part of an incontinent patient running to the bathroom in a remake of One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest Mendes and Forster's careers are over now.

[A Crag-like face]

Just saw the trailer. Considering it's supposed to be a collection of what's best in the movie? I'm

Do you believe what this has come down to? You wanted it to do decent to save the franchise. I say, and so does FBF, soon to be also FSTF if khan is on board, let it end now if this garbage carries on with Daniela, who is now relegated to Rorschach testing as a depressed Bond Enough already I cannot take much more of this loser EA, what say yee across the pond? Sweene?

Yeah, I've had more than enough myself. I make it a point now to make fun of Daniel Craig whenever I discuss James Bond with somebody. Or, if somebody says how much they love Craig (which is actually a fairly rare occurrence, I find a lot more Connery and Brosnan fans out there) I mess with them by very solemly saying things like, "Daniel Craig never starred in a Bond film" or "Daniel Craig? the gay porn star?!?" I do enjoy the hurt reactions I get from grown adults who suddenly look like 5 year olds who've learnt there's no Santa Claus.

Above all else, the important thing for us is to not despair and to not try to prostyletize, which tends to turn people off. The best response to Craig fanboyism is a mixture of mockery and neglect. Ignore Craigism, and when it can't be ignored, mock it mercilessly. The public will come around to our point of view eventually. I think it will be very, very soon. But even if it isn't, one day people will realize what a lot of horse manure this era of "Bond" is, and it will end with a thud.

I'm not worried about he Bond series ending, either. If it takes a six year hiatus to clean out Craigism for good (preferably in an arrangment that involves Sony/MGM buying out Babs and MGW and kicking them to the curb, then so be it). EON is a sewer (where Craig lives, apparently) and it needs to be flushed out.

[FormerBondFan]

Also, I have a vague sense (just that, but enough of an intuition to share it here) that the public is tired of the emotionally troubled action hero.

Batman is exceptional, and Chris Nolan did it right. Bale's Bat may be a troubled action hero, but he can be funny and relaxing from time to time. You don't see this in DC's Bond. What EON did was doing what Chris did and took it to the next level too far. The way I see James Bond is that he's more of a mystery man than a troubled individual. Yes, Bond does have some traits of troubled person, but overall, he doesn't reveal much of his past.

[FormerBondFan]

Latest poster of the Bat's final battle:

[shaken not stirred]

I'm not worried about he Bond series ending, either. If it takes a six year hiatus to clean out Craigism for good (preferably in an arrangment that involves Sony/MGM buying out Babs and MGW and kicking them to the curb, then so be it). EON is a sewer (where Craig lives, apparently) and it needs to be flushed out.

This, much as I wanted an exception, if it does well all it means is more for craig so none of us win, this has to be a flop no exceptions and if it takes new blood that respects the property to bring it back to it's former glory whether it be 6 years (hopefully less) then I say let it happen, I've always hated this pretentious, pc bond he is now, no cavorting with women, no doing what he does, nope, bond is on a leash now and sadly for all intents and purposes he's clearly babs bitch who will jump through any hoops she gives him, the real bond took no crap from anyone & worse had m follow him half way around the world to tell him off and go sit in a corner.

The bond in drag advert couldn't have said it better (but we already knew the message long before that), that also alone should have people angry at what bonds become not hyping another turdfest, hate to admit it but I'd rather watch a godawful uwe bole movie over the craigs bonds, atleast they wont put Me to sleep.

[FormerBondFan]

Bond is better dead than alive. If he's alive, then he's not really alive but rather this:



And I can say this again. Let's give an example here. For those of you who play Resident Evil or at least watch the gameplay of it, you know why Raccoon City had to be NUKED.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlo5KuNm ... re=related[/video]

You can't save the city when the T-Virus and the horde of zombies went complete out of whack. Pre-zombie infested Raccoon City is to the Bond franchise (1962 - 2002) as zombie infested Raccoon City is the franchise when DC took over. DC's Bonds are the James Bond equivalent of T-Virus, and their purpose is to infect the audience and the public into liking DC's Bond and the movies featuring him just like the T-Virus' purpose is to turn people into monstrous zombies. Like BJ said, there's no point of saving the franchise with DC in it. The only way is to NUKE franchise through Bond 23 being end up in a nuclear explosion. And shaken....you get the point here, and you know I said this a billion times.

Heck, I can live without Bond. There's plenty of franchises out for escapism if not Potter and Chris' Bat. Speaking of Chris' Bat, it may be grounded and realistic, but still it's escapism compared to DC's Bond. Gadgets, fancy cars, Bond look in Christian Bale, and not to mention a Q-like character in Morgan Freeman.

[Omega]

Will MIB 3 be any good? I kind of wonder what the reaction to it will be the reviews are mixed so far. I kind of think people may put it off to rent it because MIB 2 sucked so bad and MIB is so old now, it really looks dated. Plus the stupid tie in song.

[Mexican Staring Frog]

MIB3 looks stupid, I will not bother.

[FormerBondFan]

Will MIB 3 be any good? I kind of wonder what the reaction to it will be the reviews are mixed so far. I kind of think people may put it off to rent it because MIB 2 sucked so bad and MIB is so old now, it really looks dated. Plus the stupid tie in song.

Or MIB is ending up like the Jaws franchise.

[bjmdds]

Bring back the glory days of Pierce as Bond Ten years trashed by a transvestite porcupine in the role

[katied]

Bring back the glory days of Pierce as Bond Ten years trashed by a transvestite porcupine in the role

True that. I like all of the Bonds save for Craig(obviously) and Lazenby(never seen OHMSS...yeah, I know. )

[A Crag-like face]

Bring back the glory days of Pierce as Bond Ten years trashed by a transvestite porcupine in the role

True that. I like all of the Bonds save for Craig(obviously) and Lazenby(never seen OHMSS...yeah, I know. )

You owe it to yourself to see OHMSS at some point. Lazenby is a bit raw but does alright. Other aspects of the movie (Diana Rigg, the skiing, the musical score) are superb. It took me many years to appreciate the film because on other Bond forums I was treated as a pariah for liking DAF and Connery's performance in it. Certain people oversell OHMSS as some sort of deeply meaningful movie, as if it's Sophocles' Antigone. Now, the end of OHMSS is moving, but it's just a Bond picture in the end. Unsurprisingly, the OHMSS zealots on the other forums are now Craigheads.

Actually, this leads to a good point about the Bond films. Bond films used to be great because there was no canon. Is the Walther PPK "standard issue, British Secret Service" or is Bond the only man who uses the gun? The movies don't agree, and it really doesn't matter. You can watch the classic Bond films in any order. As a kid, I loved the "Seven Days of 007" marathons on TBS. A Dalton movie might come right before YOLT, or MR might be right before LTK. And it really didn't matter.

All this changed with the Craig films. Before, it really didn't matter what order you watched the films in. Oh, I know that some movies reference other movies. FRWL mention Dr. No, for instance. But it wasn't all that important. What mattered was that all of the classic Bond films existed in the same universe. Now, we are tlod exactly how Bond became a '00', and QOS is a direct sequel to CR. Suddenly the Bond movies are becoming canonical, and that's not at all a good thing.

Still, I do recommend watching OMHSS when you're in the mood for a Dalton film, or films like FYEO. If you're in a DAF/MR/DAD mood, it'll probably annoy you a little. Enjoy!

[katied]

I LOVED Dalton's films, and will try to watch OHMSS one of these days.



DAF is a great movie, though you can tell it was made in 1971(the same year I was born!)

[bjmdds]

http://www.theweek.co.uk/film/james-bon ... ll-trailer Eon's payoffs at work.

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

Bring back the glory days of Pierce as Bond Ten years trashed by a transvestite porcupine in the role

I wouln't go that far, myself. Brosnan was only slightly less awful than Craig. To much smarm and smugness for me. I feel that Dalton should have continued as Bond though the 1990's. But when push comes to shove, I would pick Brosnan over Craig as Bond.