|
Post by skywalker on Aug 28, 2007 15:21:05 GMT -5
OHMSS was just on Spike channel. Lazenby does have the good looks and suave charm for Bond but Connery was so popular Lazenby never had a chance. There was a certain roguish charm about Lazenby that helped shield any acting deficiencies he had. It's a shame he didn't get to do DAF.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 28, 2007 4:51:58 GMT -5
I think Lazenby is more appreciated today than he was when starring in OHMSS. Moore just slipped into the role effortlessly.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 22, 2007 6:44:42 GMT -5
Welcome BJ to our growing forum. You raise legitimate points which strike a cord with a fair few Bond fans.
Poirot makes an interesting statement regarding BO returns. Should CR have eclipsed DAD by a much bigger margin? When you consider the admissions gap is considerably closer and when you look at the admissions increase for Brosnan in GE from LTK you see a much higher BO return in terms of % increase than CR from DAD.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Sept 2, 2007 14:12:49 GMT -5
I'm going to contact Julian Mcmahon's agent. We could be onto a box-office smash here. I'll see about re-hiring the pigeon's.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 29, 2007 15:48:02 GMT -5
I didn't get that one either. Was it really a choice of Craig or DAD 2? Yes. There was no other option. It was Craig or Julian Mcmahon para-surfing next to an invisible double-taking pigeon.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 28, 2007 10:28:17 GMT -5
Another good one some people do is to say :" I suppose you want awful CGI effects, an invsible car etc". Well, no. I just want a well produced Bond film with a handsome actor with a modicum of charm. Maybe I'm just fussy. It's amazing how many times I've been asked do I want a return to all things DAD, just because I've been critical of CR.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 28, 2007 4:48:52 GMT -5
It seems that people either feel they have to constantly defend Craig, or else be diplomatic when discussing him. It's ridiculous. Why should anyone have to do either when discussing a current James Bond actor? . You've got your finger on the pulse Poirot. On forum's like MI6, it is difficult to voice a strong anti-Craig opinion without getting shot down in flames. One on one, I'm pretty confident I could win most debates (even when I know I'm wrong), but there are way too many attack dogs ready to jump on any negativity towards Craig that it is hard to debate him on those sites.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 28, 2007 4:43:24 GMT -5
Thank you all for welcome, good to see you as mod on this forum Skywalker and good to see that you appreciate Roger Moore who i agree is the Best James Bond! Ahhhh Sir Rog. Might have to watch LALD tonight.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 22, 2007 6:34:36 GMT -5
Hi Everbody! I am new to the forum, i am also a member of craignotbond forum too, i regretfully say that i do not get much of a chance to post but i have scanned this forum and have posted on craignotbond and i find both forums to be excellent, resonable debate not abusivea to the growing minority that are not keen on Craig as Bond. Great Sites and Forums! A more than welcome addition to our forum. Hope you get the chance to post more often.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 20, 2007 12:40:11 GMT -5
Eon could have made a wonderful new series of bond movies if they had cast a mid-20's actor as James Bond. Instead they have a 40 year old actor, and are insisting on a young, raw Bond story arc. How, on earth, are they allowed to get away with this. In the scene with Dryden at the start, Craig's Bond is pretty cool and professional. If the film had stayed on that course I would have been happy. Unfortunately that was not the case and what we got was an old man trying to regain his lost youth. Whether you like Craig as Bond is open to debate, but to play it how he did, was just not right.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 16, 2007 16:20:01 GMT -5
Craig has said that Bond 22 will have more of a headstrong Bond learning his trade. There must be a cut-off point where this becomes slightly ridiculous. This totally contradicts even the most modern updated Bond biography, which highlights Bond's military background and subsequent years in the Armed forces. Craig must be the oldest Apprentice in history.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 9, 2007 7:12:44 GMT -5
Hello, As you mentioned in another post, Mr. Skywalker...the pre-titles sequence of CR was very "Bondish"....however, the famous gun barrel opening and music was missing and then tacked on to the titles, which still bothers me! People are going to say..."yeah, that's because he was just becoming a "00"...ect, ect. For me it was like not hearing the 20th Century Fox Fanfare, reading "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..., and hearing John Willliams' score at the beginning of a Star Wars movie. I'm sorry, I'm a little off topic on a bit of a nit-picky rant...but please in Bond 22...que up Monty Norman's music, have Mr. Craig walking from the right to left, turn and shoot, and have the blood flow...start the pre-titles, and let the fun begin! Thanks In Advance, EON! Your right. The Gun barrel sequence should be synonymous with a James Bond film and your example highlighted that point to perfection. Further to your reference of DC not having attained his OO status. Was this the reason behind the non appearance of the Gun barrel, or was it that EON felt DC is not really Bond.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Sept 18, 2007 15:30:23 GMT -5
If Bond 22 gets high admissions? From a personal stand point I couldn't care less. If the BO receipts are record breaking, I'm sure many Pro-Craigers will praise 'King' Craig to the hilt. For the minority of Bond fans who are not overwhelmed by DC, Bond 22 will not be well received regardless of performance. For me, I hope Craig displays the charm and refinement that was so evident in his predecessors and so lacking in CR. If Bond 22 dies a death at the theatre, we can expect the lame excuses to come to the fore. I agree to a certian extent Skywalker but should the new film be a hit it will give them an excuse to make another in a similar vain Craig is not right for the part and no matter what spin eon put on it he never will be. I think if you struggle to accept Craig as Bond for reasons relating to appearance, it would be hard for you to accept him in any style of Bond film.
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Sept 15, 2007 15:51:01 GMT -5
I don't have any real issue with Arnold being back amongst the fold, but the Dame should have been ditched. The contradiction between Goldeneye's Q and CR's Q is so apparent and a big mistake. I agree with this. Bond has reused actors before - hey, wasn't Octopussy in TMWTGG, and doesn't DAF's Blofeld look awfully familiar - but at least they played different characters. I think she was included to give a sense of 'not all things are new'. I do think CR would have been the perfect time to introduce a new M
|
|
|
Post by skywalker on Aug 22, 2007 6:37:59 GMT -5
Here's how you can tell it wasn't the big gamble everyone made it out to be: EON took it. Even if CR had only drawn half of the business they had been getting, they would've still turned a profit. They also had two backup plans ready to go: They could've gotten Brosnan back for one more outing, or fallen back on a more traditional (gadgets and stunts) Bond film. This was a far different situation than when Goldeneye debuted. If it had flopped, it would've meant two actors had failed to replace Moore (who would've also been unable to return). Also, why were Dench and Arnold back? Shouldn't they have been shown the door when Brosnan was ejected? I don't have any real issue with Arnold being back amongst the fold, but the Dame should have been ditched. The contradiction between Goldeneye's M and CR's M is so apparent and a big mistake.
|
|