Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Just can't seem to get rid of me
Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254466] Do, 20 April 2006 08:44
bcorby  
Ok, I know I've been gone from the group for quite some time,
occasionally lurking, often not. Bond never lost my interest, I just
started lurking, then disappeared.

As often happens, I've been annoyed just enough into returning. I knew
that Casino Royale was to be a "prequel" of sorts, but I wondered just
how they were going to explain Judi Dench as M in a prequel. Then, much
more recently, I found out that this was to be a total reboot of the
series.

This, as you might imagine, has me fuming. Reboots work in comic books
only when the storylines have become so varied and convoluted that
everything needs to be thrown out the window. I have yet to see a
successful film reboot--Batman Begins does not count, as it's the start
of a new series and not a reboot.

What happens to all the old continuity? Did Blofeld and SPECTRE never
exist? Was Bond never married to Tracy? Are we supposed to just accept
it when EON says that all happened more like ten years ago? Or even
worse--is EON going to re-use all those stories and remake 40 years of
Bond films (not that remaking isn't what they've generally done
anyway)?

Beyond this, the idea of rebooting and keeping at least M the same is
ridiculous. Reboot means new characters, new backstory, new everything.
EON just seems reluctant to part ways with the last of the classic
Bond. If they really wanted to reboot the series, they should go
all-out. Entirely new cast (including a new M), no more gunbarrel, new
Bond theme, the works. What I see happening here is a half-assed
attempt at saying, "Bond is new, young, and hip now!" while still being
able to say to those of us who grew up on the classic Bond, "Hey, it's
ok, the Bond you knew and loved is still here, just updated some."

EON's going to have to choose with this one. Either go all the way,
disavow any knowledge of the past Bond episodes, write a new theme
song, come up with a new opening sequence (maybe even doing away with
the classic pre-credit), and pray that the new generation finds Bond as
cool as those of us who still count "From Russia with Love" among our
favorite movies, or pray that the "have your cake and eat it too"
approach works far better than I expect it to. It's not like the Bond
franchise was in dire straits to begin with. Batman was dead and buried
when Batman Begins was conceived. There were always plans for Bond 21,
which means there was no reason to pull a reboot.

Reboots are done for two reasons. Either the franchise is on life
support (as was the case with Batman) or long dead (Superman), or the
core audience has outgrown it and a new generation of readers is needed
(Spider-man comics). Neither one applies to Bond, as the series was not
dying off, and the new generation of fans (my generation, technically
speaking) was accepting it right alongside those who had been watching
since Dr. No. Rebooting Bond is a frivolous and pointless move--if
we're going to use the "Bond should be 85 by now!" argument, then why
wouldn't we have started hearing about rebooting 30 years ago, when
Bond would've arguably been pushing MI6 retirement age (I believe Bond
states the statutory retirement age of 45 in one of the novels)?

I've always wanted to see Casino Royale done on film, the right way.
I'm not convinced that EON will do it the right way, as I half-expect
the novel's thrilling climax to be turned into some machine-gun battle
through the flames, and the stunning twist at the end of the novel to
be revealed much earlier on, before we have so much invested in the
character, so that it doesn't turn audiences off emotionally--if they
don't just throw it away entirely and have everyone go off happily ever
after. Still, it has to be closer than the 1967 spoof version, and it
might be a great movie that blows me away. Doesn't change the fact that
I'm worried for the Bond franchise right now. Something as drastic as a
reboot isn't done without damn good reason. "Batman and Robin" is a
damn good reason to reboot and pretend the other series never happened.
Noticing that your core audience stopped reading comics twenty years
ago is a good reason. Updating a character's storyline that you'd never
had a problem stretching to the limit before is not, and it's a move
that, IMHO, endangers the entire series' survival.

And Daniel Craig...ugh. Watch "Sin City" and tell me that Clive Owen
isn't the perfect Bond.

-Ben Corby
"Yes, dammit, I'm still alive."
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254467 ] Do, 20 April 2006 09:47
The Shadow  
bcorby [at] gmail.com wrote:
> Ok, I know I've been gone from the group for quite some time,
> occasionally lurking, often not. Bond never lost my interest, I just
> started lurking, then disappeared.
>
> As often happens, I've been annoyed just enough into returning. I knew
> that Casino Royale was to be a "prequel" of sorts, but I wondered just
> how they were going to explain Judi Dench as M in a prequel. Then, much
> more recently, I found out that this was to be a total reboot of the
> series.
>
> This, as you might imagine, has me fuming. Reboots work in comic books
> only when the storylines have become so varied and convoluted that
> everything needs to be thrown out the window. I have yet to see a
> successful film reboot--Batman Begins does not count, as it's the start
> of a new series and not a reboot.
>
> What happens to all the old continuity? Did Blofeld and SPECTRE never
> exist? Was Bond never married to Tracy? Are we supposed to just accept
> it when EON says that all happened more like ten years ago? Or even
> worse--is EON going to re-use all those stories and remake 40 years of
> Bond films (not that remaking isn't what they've generally done
> anyway)?
>
> Beyond this, the idea of rebooting and keeping at least M the same is
> ridiculous. Reboot means new characters, new backstory, new everything.
> EON just seems reluctant to part ways with the last of the classic
> Bond. If they really wanted to reboot the series, they should go
> all-out. Entirely new cast (including a new M), no more gunbarrel, new
> Bond theme, the works. What I see happening here is a half-assed
> attempt at saying, "Bond is new, young, and hip now!" while still being
> able to say to those of us who grew up on the classic Bond, "Hey, it's
> ok, the Bond you knew and loved is still here, just updated some."
>
> EON's going to have to choose with this one. Either go all the way,
> disavow any knowledge of the past Bond episodes, write a new theme
> song, come up with a new opening sequence (maybe even doing away with
> the classic pre-credit), and pray that the new generation finds Bond as
> cool as those of us who still count "From Russia with Love" among our
> favorite movies, or pray that the "have your cake and eat it too"
> approach works far better than I expect it to. It's not like the Bond
> franchise was in dire straits to begin with. Batman was dead and buried
> when Batman Begins was conceived. There were always plans for Bond 21,
> which means there was no reason to pull a reboot.
>
> Reboots are done for two reasons. Either the franchise is on life
> support (as was the case with Batman) or long dead (Superman), or the
> core audience has outgrown it and a new generation of readers is needed
> (Spider-man comics). Neither one applies to Bond, as the series was not
> dying off, and the new generation of fans (my generation, technically
> speaking) was accepting it right alongside those who had been watching
> since Dr. No. Rebooting Bond is a frivolous and pointless move--if
> we're going to use the "Bond should be 85 by now!" argument, then why
> wouldn't we have started hearing about rebooting 30 years ago, when
> Bond would've arguably been pushing MI6 retirement age (I believe Bond
> states the statutory retirement age of 45 in one of the novels)?
>
> I've always wanted to see Casino Royale done on film, the right way.
> I'm not convinced that EON will do it the right way, as I half-expect
> the novel's thrilling climax to be turned into some machine-gun battle
> through the flames, and the stunning twist at the end of the novel to
> be revealed much earlier on, before we have so much invested in the
> character, so that it doesn't turn audiences off emotionally--if they
> don't just throw it away entirely and have everyone go off happily ever
> after. Still, it has to be closer than the 1967 spoof version, and it
> might be a great movie that blows me away. Doesn't change the fact that
> I'm worried for the Bond franchise right now. Something as drastic as a
> reboot isn't done without damn good reason. "Batman and Robin" is a
> damn good reason to reboot and pretend the other series never happened.
> Noticing that your core audience stopped reading comics twenty years
> ago is a good reason. Updating a character's storyline that you'd never
> had a problem stretching to the limit before is not, and it's a move
> that, IMHO, endangers the entire series' survival.
>
> And Daniel Craig...ugh. Watch "Sin City" and tell me that Clive Owen
> isn't the perfect Bond.
>
> -Ben Corby
> "Yes, dammit, I'm still alive."



You have been gone for awhile but your thoughts on what is going on with
Bond are right on target.

What EON is doing right now also has me confused, seems like they are
only going half way on anything that they do.

Right now if I am in the mood for a spy thriller I watch the television
show NCIS.

I hope that they do not muck this one up but if the early reports are
correct on the changes being made to Casino Royale then look for another
film that has only the title and is nothing like the Ian Fleming book.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254468 ] Do, 20 April 2006 10:12
WQ  
bcorby [at] gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

--- Yes, your concerns are well-founded. Too bad you weren't around
here a little while back, you would've been party, or at least witness,
to a lot of heated exchanges over the pros and cons of Craig and the
whole reboot concept. I got caught in the crossfire myself. You can
actually check back on it all in this group, it all pretty well kicked
in when the official announcement of Craig was made back in October, so
just backtrack on the posts to that point. Plenty of robust reading if
you have the time.

But yeah, I'd be interested myself to see how they explain the whole
chronology inconsistency. My guess is that they'll just ignore it.

> And Daniel Craig...ugh. Watch "Sin City" and tell me that Clive Owen
> isn't the perfect Bond.

--- I immediately saw Bond in him when I saw him for the first time in
Beyond Borders a few years back. It was then later confirmed for me
when I came across his online Hire films for BMW. Sony had their
sights on wanting to get Owen, but good ol' Barb Broccoli shot that
whole thing down by sticking to her two guns with Craig. She got her
way, of course. That was one of the bristly points discussed rather
intensely during the heyday of the Craig debate here, being: What could
be the possible rationale for her having decided on him? Words like
genitalia were haphazardly thrown around.


>
> -Ben Corby
> "Yes, dammit, I'm still alive."
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254469 ] Do, 20 April 2006 10:20
bcorby  
When even The Shadow does not know, much is wrong with the world.

Good to see you're alive and kicking, Shadow. How's our mutual friend,
Destructo, Lord of Evil, doing these days?
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254478 ] Do, 20 April 2006 18:14
Mike Feeney  
Our good friend Ben "Obi-Wan" Corby wrote...

> And Daniel Craig...ugh. Watch "Sin City" and tell me that
> Clive Owen isn't the perfect Bond.
>

Agreed 100 percent, Ben! After seeing 'Sin City', I was
sold on Clive Owen as James Bond.

I was also sold on Jessica Alba being my girlfriend,
fiancee, wife, and mother of all my children. Still
keeping my fingers crossed on this one...

And as for your concerns regarding 'Casino Royale', I also
agree. My personal belief is that the film will suck hole,
big-time.

> -Ben Corby
> "Yes, dammit, I'm still alive."
>

Good to see you back in action, Mr. Corby.

--Mike
"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of a
nose zit on prom night."
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254479 ] Do, 20 April 2006 21:17
Dr Shatterhand  
Mike Feeney wrote:
> And as for your concerns regarding 'Casino Royale', I also
> agree. My personal belief is that the film will suck hole,
> big-time.

I, too have been away from this forum for a long time.

Many people here have expressed their dire opinions about the fate of
CR06. Most have complained about Judi Dench being in the role of M
when this film seems to be a 'reboot'. Perhaps we are not giving the
filmmakers a chance in explaining their decisions on the direction of
the film.

As far as I can tell, Judi Dench does not appear as M in any scenes
that take place before the DN - LTK assignments. Most likely her role
of M takes place prior to the GoldenEye mission. Nonetheless, we shall
see.

I do feel though that CR06 will certainly be better than DAD and
lightyears away from the 67 version. Although updated, we will
probably be pleasently surprised seeing Ian Fleming written scenes on
the screen again.

Just my two cents worth.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254480 ] Do, 20 April 2006 21:25
mwolvie  
Wow....to see all the vets back, and voicing concern.....it's
continuing my feeling of dread for this movie.

Not since Godzilla '98 have I anticipated such a disaster for a
successful franchise. And yes, that includes Batman and Robin (because
that was even far WORSE than what I was hearing).

Chris C.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254481 ] Do, 20 April 2006 22:00
Tom Zielinski  
<mwolvie [at] umich.edu> wrote in message
news:1145561120.769556.75370 [at] g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Wow....to see all the vets back, and voicing concern.....it's
> continuing my feeling of dread for this movie.


I think it's gonna be great.





Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that being a vet isn't all it's cracked up to be..."
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254482 ] Do, 20 April 2006 22:55
Paul Clarke  
I've a sneaking suspicion it is going to be a memorable entry in the
series. After the fantastical, quick cut flashiness of the last one, a
reworking of the series is just what the Dr. (No?) ordered. I am more
pumped for this movie than any 007 flick since Dalton's debut back in 1987.

mwolvie [at] umich.edu wrote:
> Wow....to see all the vets back, and voicing concern.....it's
> continuing my feeling of dread for this movie.
>
> Not since Godzilla '98 have I anticipated such a disaster for a
> successful franchise. And yes, that includes Batman and Robin (because
> that was even far WORSE than what I was hearing).
>
> Chris C.
>

--
==007===
"My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
That's as bad as making dire predictions about daring shake-ups of stale
formulas."
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254483 ] Fr, 21 April 2006 00:35
The Shadow  
bcorby [at] gmail.com wrote:
> When even The Shadow does not know, much is wrong with the world.


http://www.theshadowfan.com/music/drhook.mp3



> Good to see you're alive and kicking, Shadow. How's our mutual friend,
> Destructo, Lord of Evil, doing these days?



Last seen in Dallas, Texas at a Hooters.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254484 ] Fr, 21 April 2006 01:37
timscurtin  
I'm really looking forward to it as well. By my reckoning, 1 1/2 of
the last two Bonds have been up there with the best of the series.
Even without the services of The Natural, I think they can still make
CR work.

TC
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254485 ] Fr, 21 April 2006 01:56
Mac  
I'll be honest and say that I am looking forward to this more than I would
have been had it been the same old, same old with Pierce (and I liked him).

The rumblings and leaks have re-ignited my interest in Bond and this re-boot
is going to be nowhere near as drastic as some fear; it'll be a re-boot on a
par with ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE following YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

Even if the final film isn't to my liking, I'll give EON points for trying.

--Mac

Last film I watched: CARANDIRU (Hector Babenco, 2003)
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254487 ] Fr, 21 April 2006 02:17
Will Traynor  
<mwolvie [at] umich.edu> wrote in message
news:1145561120.769556.75370 [at] g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Wow....to see all the vets back, and voicing concern.....it's
> continuing my feeling of dread for this movie.
>


Lighten up, there are plenty of fans out there who are excited and have good
vibes about the movie.

> Not since Godzilla '98 have I anticipated such a disaster for a
> successful franchise. And yes, that includes Batman and Robin (because
> that was even far WORSE than what I was hearing).
>
> Chris C.
>
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254491 ] Fr, 21 April 2006 09:22
Tim Pollard  
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:4aqle6Fu48u5U1 [at] individual.net...

> I'll be honest and say that I am looking forward to this more than I would
> have been had it been the same old, same old with Pierce (and I liked
> him).


Yep: consider if you will, the fantastic 'Tim Pollard Recent Bond Film
Questionnaire'(tm):

1) 'Does the forthcoming film contain an invisible car or Denise Richards?'

If the answer to the question above is 'No', then the film may well be worth
getting excited about.


See? Simple!



--
Regards

Tim Pollard

www.timpollard.com

A useful unit of measurement: the 'millihelen' is the amount of beauty
needed to launch one ship.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254494 ] Fr, 21 April 2006 17:04
Absorb  
bcorby [at] gmail.com wrote:
> Ok, I know I've been gone from the group for quite some time,
> occasionally lurking, often not. Bond never lost my interest, I just
> started lurking, then disappeared.

I think we all pay less attention to the NG sometimes ;)

> What happens to all the old continuity? Did Blofeld and SPECTRE never
> exist? Was Bond never married to Tracy? Are we supposed to just accept
> it when EON says that all happened more like ten years ago? Or even
> worse--is EON going to re-use all those stories and remake 40 years of
> Bond films (not that remaking isn't what they've generally done
> anyway)?

Honestly, I really hate anything besides a very loose continuity. Too
many people get lost in the details instead of caring about the big
picture. In any long running property such as soap operas, comic books,
comic strips, television shows, film series, etc. the little things
aren't going to match up because you have too many people and too much
time involved. Heck, Det. Logan in the Law and Order franchise has been
established as an atheist, retconned to a Catholic, and then retconned
again to an agnostic.

IMHO, it's been the same guy in all the Bond films so far, and unless
the Craig films make it completely impossible, it's the same Bond to me
in CR.

> Beyond this, the idea of rebooting and keeping at least M the same is
> ridiculous.

I admit that I wouldn't have kept Dench since everyone else is going to
be different.

> Reboots are done for two reasons. Either the franchise is on life
> support (as was the case with Batman) or long dead (Superman),

Batman Begins was a true reboot, but Superman Returns is actually a
continuation with the first two films (Superman 1 and 2) in a loose
continuity. Oddly enough, in trying to explain that to people, some
Superman fans have used GoldenEye and the Bond franchise as the example
of how it's going to work.

> Doesn't change the fact that
> I'm worried for the Bond franchise right now. Something as drastic as a
> reboot isn't done without damn good reason. "Batman and Robin" is a
> damn good reason to reboot and pretend the other series never happened.
> Noticing that your core audience stopped reading comics twenty years
> ago is a good reason. Updating a character's storyline that you'd never
> had a problem stretching to the limit before is not, and it's a move
> that, IMHO, endangers the entire series' survival.

When Batman Begins came out, there was an article in Vogue about it.
Honestly, I think CR is really trying to broaden Bond's appeal to that
same "hipper than thou" crowd.

I'm on the fence whether I'll like it or not. We'll see :)

> And Daniel Craig...ugh. Watch "Sin City" and tell me that Clive Owen
> isn't the perfect Bond.

He was *awful* in that, and I liked him after the BMW short films.

Absorb
------------------------------------------------------------ -
"On through the dead of night, with the Four Horsemen ride
Or choose your fate and die" -James Hetfield
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254496 ] Fr, 21 April 2006 19:00
WQ  
Tim Pollard wrote:
> "Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
> news:4aqle6Fu48u5U1 [at] individual.net...
>
> > I'll be honest and say that I am looking forward to this more than I would
> > have been had it been the same old, same old with Pierce (and I liked
> > him).
>
>
> Yep: consider if you will, the fantastic 'Tim Pollard Recent Bond Film
> Questionnaire'(tm):
>
> 1) 'Does the forthcoming film contain an invisible car or Denise Richards?'
>
> If the answer to the question above is 'No', then the film may well be worth
> getting excited about.

--- But then, it does come equipped with Daniel Craig, who just may be
a hard sell as Bond, the few rabid hard core Craig fans
nothwithstanding, come the film's release time.

>
>
> See? Simple!
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Tim Pollard
>
> www.timpollard.com
>
> A useful unit of measurement: the 'millihelen' is the amount of beauty
> needed to launch one ship.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254497 ] Fr, 21 April 2006 19:17
WQ  
Absorb wrote:
> bcorby [at] gmail.com wrote:

> When Batman Begins came out, there was an article in Vogue about it.
> Honestly, I think CR is really trying to broaden Bond's appeal to that
> same "hipper than thou" crowd.

--- Yeah, but the real question is how hip is Craig to begin with, or
could he possibly be, with that elusive and indefinable "hipper than
thou crowd"? Not only that, but hip is something that died with the
60s.

> I'm on the fence whether I'll like it or not. We'll see :)
>
> > And Daniel Craig...ugh. Watch "Sin City" and tell me that Clive Owen
> > isn't the perfect Bond.
>
> He was *awful* in that, and I liked him after the BMW short films.

--- I'll agree that he didn't impress me much in Sin City neither, his
role seeming to be not only almost pointless in the greater scheme of
things in that movie, but zero-dimensional as well. But I think he
still would've made a pretty good Bond based on those BMW shorts.

>
> Absorb
> ------------------------------------------------------------ -
> "On through the dead of night, with the Four Horsemen ride
> Or choose your fate and die" -James Hetfield
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254498 ] Fr, 21 April 2006 20:36
mwolvie  
WQ wrote:
> Absorb wrote:
> > bcorby [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> > When Batman Begins came out, there was an article in Vogue about it.
> > Honestly, I think CR is really trying to broaden Bond's appeal to that
> > same "hipper than thou" crowd.
>
> --- Yeah, but the real question is how hip is Craig to begin with, or
> could he possibly be, with that elusive and indefinable "hipper than
> thou crowd"? Not only that, but hip is something that died with the
> 60s.

That's what I was going to say. Going retro wouldn't be that hip to
begin with, but Craig certainly isn't the type who is going to attract
casual fans (i.e. women). If women didn't think Dalton was all that, I
can't imagine how they're going to stay away from Craig....

There may be some "new Bond" hype, but I don't know that it's going to
help them much past opening weekend.

> > I'm on the fence whether I'll like it or not. We'll see :)
> >
> > > And Daniel Craig...ugh. Watch "Sin City" and tell me that Clive Owen
> > > isn't the perfect Bond.
> >
> > He was *awful* in that, and I liked him after the BMW short films.
>
> --- I'll agree that he didn't impress me much in Sin City neither, his
> role seeming to be not only almost pointless in the greater scheme of
> things in that movie, but zero-dimensional as well. But I think he
> still would've made a pretty good Bond based on those BMW shorts.

Hmmm....I don't know that the hard-boiled stuff of Sin City made me
think of Bond (although I liked him in it), but, of all things, Closer
made me think he could do it. The tortured soul, and the cold-hearted
ruthlessness with which he does things, convinced me he could be Bond.
Heck, I'd have settled for a Hugh Jackman over this guy. I mean, it's
not that someone who's skin makes Robert Davi look like a baby's bottom
isn't my idea of Bond....ok, well, yeah, he's not.

Chris C.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254499 ] Fr, 21 April 2006 21:10
WQ  
mwolvie [at] umich.edu wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> > Absorb wrote:
> > > bcorby [at] gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > When Batman Begins came out, there was an article in Vogue about it.
> > > Honestly, I think CR is really trying to broaden Bond's appeal to that
> > > same "hipper than thou" crowd.
> >
> > --- Yeah, but the real question is how hip is Craig to begin with, or
> > could he possibly be, with that elusive and indefinable "hipper than
> > thou crowd"? Not only that, but hip is something that died with the
> > 60s.
>
> That's what I was going to say. Going retro wouldn't be that hip to
> begin with, but Craig certainly isn't the type who is going to attract
> casual fans (i.e. women). If women didn't think Dalton was all that, I
> can't imagine how they're going to stay away from Craig....
>
> There may be some "new Bond" hype, but I don't know that it's going to
> help them much past opening weekend.
>
> > > I'm on the fence whether I'll like it or not. We'll see :)
> > >
> > > > And Daniel Craig...ugh. Watch "Sin City" and tell me that Clive Owen
> > > > isn't the perfect Bond.
> > >
> > > He was *awful* in that, and I liked him after the BMW short films.
> >
> > --- I'll agree that he didn't impress me much in Sin City neither, his
> > role seeming to be not only almost pointless in the greater scheme of
> > things in that movie, but zero-dimensional as well. But I think he
> > still would've made a pretty good Bond based on those BMW shorts.
>
> Hmmm....I don't know that the hard-boiled stuff of Sin City made me
> think of Bond (although I liked him in it), but, of all things, Closer
> made me think he could do it. The tortured soul, and the cold-hearted
> ruthlessness with which he does things, convinced me he could be Bond.
> Heck, I'd have settled for a Hugh Jackman over this guy. I mean, it's
> not that someone who's skin makes Robert Davi look like a baby's bottom
> isn't my idea of Bond....ok, well, yeah, he's not.

--- The tortured soul and ruthlessness, if not exactly cold-hearted,
was something I could see in his character in Beyond Borders and easily
translate into Bond terms. It was the first film I had ever seen him
in besides the BMW shorts, and it's almost as if he has an innate Bond
in him that shows through in certain roles and would finally and
naturally shine through in Bond himself.


>
> Chris C.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254501 ] Fr, 21 April 2006 23:37
JHause  
mwolvie [at] umich.edu wrote:
>
> That's what I was going to say. Going retro wouldn't be that hip to
> begin with, but Craig certainly isn't the type who is going to attract
> casual fans (i.e. women). If women didn't think Dalton was all that, I
> can't imagine how they're going to stay away from Craig....
>
> There may be some "new Bond" hype, but I don't know that it's going to
> help them much past opening weekend.
>

Who gives a crap. I don't watch films in my Bond film library according
to how much they made at the box office. I hope all the anti-Craig
morons DO boycott, and I can enjoy the film in peace.

>
> Hmmm....I don't know that the hard-boiled stuff of Sin City made me
> think of Bond (although I liked him in it), but, of all things, Closer
> made me think he could do it. The tortured soul, and the cold-hearted
> ruthlessness with which he does things, convinced me he could be Bond.
> Heck, I'd have settled for a Hugh Jackman over this guy. I mean, it's
> not that someone who's skin makes Robert Davi look like a baby's bottom
> isn't my idea of Bond....ok, well, yeah, he's not.
>
> Chris C.

Yeah, skin quality is very important in government assassins. Unless
they look like male models, they're useless.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #254502 ] Fr, 21 April 2006 23:39
JHause  
WQ wrote:
>
> --- The tortured soul and ruthlessness, if not exactly cold-hearted,
> was something I could see in his character in Beyond Borders and easily
> translate into Bond terms. It was the first film I had ever seen him
> in besides the BMW shorts, and it's almost as if he has an innate Bond
> in him that shows through in certain roles and would finally and
> naturally shine through in Bond himself.
>

When he tripped as 006 in the Pink Panther movie and made a funny face,
I knew he would be ideal.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256741 ] So, 23 April 2006 15:14
Algomeysa2  
<bcorby [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145515449.536033.170180 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> This, as you might imagine, has me fuming. Reboots work in comic books
> only when the storylines have become so varied and convoluted that
> everything needs to be thrown out the window. I have yet to see a

Well, there's a basic problem that even the Pierce Brosnan Bond can't
possibly have been having adventures back in the early 1960s when DOCTOR NO
was made.

There's sort of a continual reboot...you assume Bond has had previous
adventures, something like what you've seen in previous films. But any
particular Bond couldn't have had the experiences of the entire 20+ films.

If nothing else, Felix Leiter is an example of why you can't sweat the small
stuff. He's this little old guy in GOLDFINGER. He's this goofy
younger guy in THUNDERBALL. He's this 80s swinger in THE LIVING
DAYLIGHTS. There's no continuity with him.

And certainly swapping out Moneypennies when you get a new Bond is the right
idea.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256756 ] Di, 25 April 2006 02:40
brentweaver  
I certainly agree with a lot of your points. I guess the question is
how literally the fans take the continuity...

The early films are very clearly set in the early 60's. Were we to
believe that Brosnan's Bond was around to fight Dr. No in 1962? Or are
we to assume that Brosnan's Bond fought Dr. No at some undetermined
time in the past? Or are we to believe that Brosnan's Bond had many
adventures in the past, just not ones that we have specifically seen
(the "continual reboot" theory)?

There was a quote in a magazine I read once, and I think it explains
the intention of the "film-makers" quite clearly. I have looked all
over cyberspace for the story and can't find it, and as I have a habit
of thumbing through magazines in the bookstore while my girlfriend
looks around I don't have a copy of the magazine (nor can I recall
which one it was). In this interview, someone associated with the
making of TWINE - and I don't recall if it was the director, writers,
or producers - stated that there was a discusion during the writing as
to how Bond should react to Electra's question of "Have you ever lost
someone close to you?". What stood out in my mind the the quote "We
asked ourselves if Pierce's Bond had ever been married". When I
mentioned this story on the newsgroup years ago a lot of people refused
to believe it. How accurate it was I can't say, but I know that I read
it because I discussed it with a fellow Bond fan the day afterwards.

Dude!

Algomeysa2 wrote:
> <bcorby [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1145515449.536033.170180 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > This, as you might imagine, has me fuming. Reboots work in comic books
> > only when the storylines have become so varied and convoluted that
> > everything needs to be thrown out the window. I have yet to see a
>
> Well, there's a basic problem that even the Pierce Brosnan Bond can't
> possibly have been having adventures back in the early 1960s when DOCTOR NO
> was made.
>
> There's sort of a continual reboot...you assume Bond has had previous
> adventures, something like what you've seen in previous films. But any
> particular Bond couldn't have had the experiences of the entire 20+ films.
>
> If nothing else, Felix Leiter is an example of why you can't sweat the small
> stuff. He's this little old guy in GOLDFINGER. He's this goofy
> younger guy in THUNDERBALL. He's this 80s swinger in THE LIVING
> DAYLIGHTS. There's no continuity with him.
>
> And certainly swapping out Moneypennies when you get a new Bond is the right
> idea.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256761 ] Di, 25 April 2006 06:27
JHause  
Not only that, how is 35 year-old Bond fighting Smersh and SPECTRE in
Dr. No, FRWL, etc, while 35 year old Bond is fighting post-Cold War
mobsters in GE, etc.? How could 55 year-old Bond fight Zorin in AVTAK
and be 40 when he starts his next mission in TLD? How could Pierce
Brosnan get married in 1969? Would Brosnan's Bond be scrubbed down with
car wash brushes to have radioactivity removed, like in Dr. No?

There NEVER was any continuity. Anybody who thinks that there is any
similarity other than character name between Bonds, or even between
films, is a jackass.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256765 ] Di, 25 April 2006 20:08
MikeSo  
"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1145939242.270534.139180 [at] t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Not only that, how is 35 year-old Bond fighting Smersh and SPECTRE in
> Dr. No, FRWL, etc, while 35 year old Bond is fighting post-Cold War
> mobsters in GE, etc.? How could 55 year-old Bond fight Zorin in AVTAK
> and be 40 when he starts his next mission in TLD? How could Pierce
> Brosnan get married in 1969? Would Brosnan's Bond be scrubbed down with
> car wash brushes to have radioactivity removed, like in Dr. No?
>
> There NEVER was any continuity. Anybody who thinks that there is any
> similarity other than character name between Bonds, or even between
> films, is a jackass.
>

Never continuity? Not true.

Prime example would be the references to OHMSS and Bond being married in
TSWLM, FYEO and LTK (just off the top of my head).

Continuity issues come with longevity. Your average movie goer either
doesn't notice them or chooses to overlook them while the fan identifies
them, picks them apart and then tries to find ways to resolve them.

The producers have the luxury of picking and choosing when they want
continuity and when they don't, which may change from movie to movie as to
what is "in" and what is "out".

Is the Bond of today the same one running around battling Dr. No in 1962? Is
the Batman of 1939 still 35 years old and battling the same Joker today?

When the lights dim and the film starts, I know I don't care! :-)

--

Thanks,
Mike
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256766 ] Di, 25 April 2006 22:24
mwolvie  
JHause wrote:
> mwolvie [at] umich.edu wrote:
> >
> > That's what I was going to say. Going retro wouldn't be that hip to
> > begin with, but Craig certainly isn't the type who is going to attract
> > casual fans (i.e. women). If women didn't think Dalton was all that, I
> > can't imagine how they're going to stay away from Craig....
> >
> > There may be some "new Bond" hype, but I don't know that it's going to
> > help them much past opening weekend.
> >
>
> Who gives a crap. I don't watch films in my Bond film library according
> to how much they made at the box office. I hope all the anti-Craig
> morons DO boycott, and I can enjoy the film in peace.

Yes, and by that reasoning, if it makes no money, they have to reboot
it all again, get a new actor, and probably have another 6 year delay
between movies. GENIUS!

> > Hmmm....I don't know that the hard-boiled stuff of Sin City made me
> > think of Bond (although I liked him in it), but, of all things, Closer
> > made me think he could do it. The tortured soul, and the cold-hearted
> > ruthlessness with which he does things, convinced me he could be Bond.
> > Heck, I'd have settled for a Hugh Jackman over this guy. I mean, it's
> > not that someone who's skin makes Robert Davi look like a baby's bottom
> > isn't my idea of Bond....ok, well, yeah, he's not.
> >
> > Chris C.
>
> Yeah, skin quality is very important in government assassins. Unless
> they look like male models, they're useless.

Because, of course, all government assassins have super model looking
women falling for them on sight. Selective suspension of disbelief
makes sooo much sense.

Chris C.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256768 ] Di, 25 April 2006 22:45
mwolvie  
Algomeysa2 wrote:
> <bcorby [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1145515449.536033.170180 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > This, as you might imagine, has me fuming. Reboots work in comic books
> > only when the storylines have become so varied and convoluted that
> > everything needs to be thrown out the window. I have yet to see a
>
> Well, there's a basic problem that even the Pierce Brosnan Bond can't
> possibly have been having adventures back in the early 1960s when DOCTOR NO
> was made.
>
> There's sort of a continual reboot...you assume Bond has had previous
> adventures, something like what you've seen in previous films. But any
> particular Bond couldn't have had the experiences of the entire 20+ films.
>
> If nothing else, Felix Leiter is an example of why you can't sweat the small
> stuff. He's this little old guy in GOLDFINGER. He's this goofy
> younger guy in THUNDERBALL. He's this 80s swinger in THE LIVING
> DAYLIGHTS. There's no continuity with him.
>
> And certainly swapping out Moneypennies when you get a new Bond is the right
> idea.

Being the reasonable one, I choose to respond here: :)

Certainly, if as was the case with literary assessments of the books,
at the time they were coming out, that while it was unlikely it could
be taking place in real time. And that every BIG adventure took place
about every six months, filled around with paperwork, training, smaller
missions, and so on. On that basis, it's completely plausible that the
20 movies could be taking place over a 10 year period, and that the 35
year old Bond (or maybe even a little younger at the start) is now a 45
year old experienced 00, because frankly, they haven't cast anyone
anywhere near 35 in ages. They all look too young and inexperience to
play Bond - not world-worn enough. (The reason Pierce makes a much
better Bond at the time of Goldeneye than he would of when Remington
Steele was coming out).

Sure, the clothes, and cars, and such would have to be retrochanged to
not be so dated, but the progression of supporting characters and
references to past missions indicates some continuity between actors.
Is it the harshest continuity out there, obsessive with it's detail and
referenced as say, a comic book? No. But certainly it has lived off
the similar compressed, changing starting point timeline that comic
books do. Superman started in 1938. But now, Smallville takes place
in the present day, and he's not even Superman yet! Clark Kent as a
Gen Y (or even Z!). Or the regular, 30something Clark in the comics
who came to earth during the Reagan administration. (Man, I'm getting
old...). Moviewise, Batman was a reboot. It sounds like Casino Royale
is a reboot. Superman Returns is a continuation of the old Superman
movies. But instead of 25 years between them, there's supposed to be
5. Bond is following that play fast and loose with the times model
much more than the reboot model. Till now. It worked for Batman. But
then, Batman was in a state of total disaster after Batman and
Robin...Bond wasn't. So, we'll all see...

Chris C.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256769 ] Di, 25 April 2006 23:10
JHause  
So then explain to me how 35 year-old Bond fighting Smersh and SPECTRE
in
Dr. No, FRWL, etc, while 35 year old Bond is fighting post-Cold War
mobsters in GE.

So what they were all married once. How many movie characters were
married once? Were they all married to Diana Rigg in 1968?

The SMART thing Bond producers have done over the years is NOT worry
about continuity. That way a ten-year-old doesn't have to worry about
integrating HIS Bond into the same universe as Sean Connery battling
Dr. No in Saran Wrap spacesuits in order to enjoy the latest movie, or
pretend it's the same guy wearing a disco tux with flared pants
battling fur-coated pimps in Harlem in 1971. Most ten year olds would
probably be bored to tears watching Dr. No today.

Fans should accept each film on its own merits and relax. I don't WANT
to picture Daniel Craig in Moonraker or AVTAK!!!
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256770 ] Di, 25 April 2006 23:59
Tim Pollard  
"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1145999437.643711.327130 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Fans should accept each film on its own merits and relax. I don't WANT
> to picture Daniel Craig in Moonraker or AVTAK!!!


To be fair, it's pretty hard with Roger Moore too...

:-)


--
Regards

Tim Pollard

www.timpollard.com

A useful unit of measurement: the 'millihelen' is the amount of beauty
needed to launch one ship.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256772 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 01:03
Mac  
Tim Pollard wrote:
> "JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1145999437.643711.327130 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Fans should accept each film on its own merits and relax. I don't
>> WANT to picture Daniel Craig in Moonraker or AVTAK!!!
>
>
> To be fair, it's pretty hard with Roger Moore too...

Ooh, matron!
--
--Mac

YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR

YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A HANDBAG

YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A MOBILE PHONE

YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A MOVIE

MOVIE PIRACY IS STEALING

STEALING IS AGAINST THE LAW

BUT AT LEAST ON A PIRATE VIDEO...

YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THIS FUCKING ANNOYING UNSKIPPABLE AD
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256774 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 01:16
Rich Handley  
"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> said:
>So what they were all married once. How many movie characters were
>married once? Were they all married to Diana Rigg in 1968?

1969, and yes -- Moore's Bond definitely was since it says so on her grave.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256776 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 02:50
mlawrenc  
>> To be fair, it's pretty hard with Roger Moore too...

>>>YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THIS FUCKING ANNOYING UNSKIPPABLE AD ...

Mac and Tim, an American might ask: "Is this an over the pond inside
joke or does one just have to be English to understand it?

iow..."Who is your floor(s)?"

Regards,
Matt
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256782 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 09:46
JHause  
Rich Handley wrote:
> "JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> said:
> >So what they were all married once. How many movie characters were
> >married once? Were they all married to Diana Rigg in 1968?
>
> 1969, and yes -- Moore's Bond definitely was since it says so on her grave.

And you picture that the same Bond was floating around with Jaws and
Drax in outer space two years before in a badly plotted science fiction
fantasy?
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256783 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 11:48
Mac  
Matt L wrote:

>>> To be fair, it's pretty hard with Roger Moore too...
>
>>>> YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THIS FUCKING ANNOYING UNSKIPPABLE
>>>> AD ...
>
> Mac and Tim, an American might ask: "Is this an over the pond inside
> joke or does one just have to be English to understand it?

It's a worldwide phenomena, I'm afraid. You've not seen that anti-piracy
commercial they put at the start of DVDs now? It's the same commercial
used on both R1 and R2 DVDs. What's really nasty is that they've
started making it so it is not possible to skip using your remote
control. The most heinous example being the recent R2 release of LORD
OF WAR, which came complete with an inescapable Mars commercial
immediately afterwards.

Sickening.
--
--Mac

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of
nickel plated handguns at a rap concert.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256785 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 14:21
mlawrenc  
I understand now. I have seen a warning similar to what you are
describing but its a bit different over hera in the States... Goes
something like this:

"FBI Warning: This dvd is ours NOT yours!. Even though you spent your
hard earned cash on it it still is ours and we reserve the right smash
in your thick skull is you don't comply with our rules and regs for its
usage.

Further, if you attempt to copy the disc or charge an entrance fee for
its viewing we will kick in your door rape your family and kill your
dog. Thank you and please enjoy the movie."

And once they've said that they then jam unskippable commercials or
promos for other movies down our throats. Ah the trials we must endure
to "enjoy" movies. ;-)

Regards,
Matt
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256786 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 14:56
Tim Pollard  
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:4b8u0aFve5elU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> It's a worldwide phenomena, I'm afraid. You've not seen that anti-piracy
> commercial they put at the start of DVDs now? It's the same commercial
> used on both R1 and R2 DVDs. What's really nasty is that they've
> started making it so it is not possible to skip using your remote
> control. The most heinous example being the recent R2 release of LORD
> OF WAR, which came complete with an inescapable Mars commercial
> immediately afterwards.
>
> Sickening.


That'll teach you to watch Lord of War (or 'Goodfellas Lite', as it wants to
be) then!


--
Regards

Tim Pollard

www.timpollard.com

A useful unit of measurement: the 'millihelen' is the amount of beauty
needed to launch one ship.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256787 ] Mi, 26 April 2006 14:59
Tim Pollard  
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:4b8u0aFve5elU1 [at] individual.net...
> Matt L wrote:
>
>>>> To be fair, it's pretty hard with Roger Moore too...
>>
>>>>> YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THIS FUCKING ANNOYING UNSKIPPABLE
>>>>> AD ...
>>
>> Mac and Tim, an American might ask: "Is this an over the pond inside
>> joke or does one just have to be English to understand it?
>
> It's a worldwide phenomena, I'm afraid. You've not seen that anti-piracy
> commercial they put at the start of DVDs now? It's the same commercial
> used on both R1 and R2 DVDs. What's really nasty is that they've
> started making it so it is not possible to skip using your remote
> control. The most heinous example being the recent R2 release of LORD
> OF WAR, which came complete with an inescapable Mars commercial
> immediately afterwards.
>
> Sickening.


Er... plus I'm reliably informed if you just rent the buggers you can do a
DVD copy which only transfers the bits you want, which never includes the
pre-main menu stuff.

Allegedly.

Apparently.

Rumour has it.




--
Regards

Tim Pollard

www.timpollard.com

A useful unit of measurement: the 'millihelen' is the amount of beauty
needed to launch one ship.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256794 ] Do, 27 April 2006 01:45
Rich Handley  
"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> said:
>And you picture that the same Bond was floating around with Jaws and
>Drax in outer space two years before in a badly plotted science fiction
>fantasy?

Not me. I like to pretend Moonraker never happened.
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256857 ] So, 30 April 2006 06:45
Draugnar  
Wasn't Moonraker a spoof? I thought Charles Feldman had hired Roger to do a
quick spoof in between EON Bond productions...

"Rich Handley" <rhandley [at] optonline.net> wrote in message
news:dg1052lthtq3jkh1icnumkgniooth9p4m4 [at] 4ax.com...
> "JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> said:
>>And you picture that the same Bond was floating around with Jaws and
>>Drax in outer space two years before in a badly plotted science fiction
>>fantasy?
>
> Not me. I like to pretend Moonraker never happened.
>
Re: Just can't seem to get rid of me [message #256889 ] Mo, 01 Mai 2006 18:47
Tom Zielinski  
Well welcome back Ben. Good to see you.

I don't agree with your assessment here, but it was (as always) a good read.



Thanks,
Tom


<bcorby [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145515449.536033.170180 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Ok, I know I've been gone from the group for quite some time,
> occasionally lurking, often not. Bond never lost my interest, I just
> started lurking, then disappeared.
>
> As often happens, I've been annoyed just enough into returning. I knew
> that Casino Royale was to be a "prequel" of sorts, but I wondered just
> how they were going to explain Judi Dench as M in a prequel. Then, much
> more recently, I found out that this was to be a total reboot of the
> series.
>
> This, as you might imagine, has me fuming. Reboots work in comic books
> only when the storylines have become so varied and convoluted that
> everything needs to be thrown out the window. I have yet to see a
> successful film reboot--Batman Begins does not count, as it's the start
> of a new series and not a reboot.
>
> What happens to all the old continuity? Did Blofeld and SPECTRE never
> exist? Was Bond never married to Tracy? Are we supposed to just accept
> it when EON says that all happened more like ten years ago? Or even
> worse--is EON going to re-use all those stories and remake 40 years of
> Bond films (not that remaking isn't what they've generally done
> anyway)?
>
> Beyond this, the idea of rebooting and keeping at least M the same is
> ridiculous. Reboot means new characters, new backstory, new everything.
> EON just seems reluctant to part ways with the last of the classic
> Bond. If they really wanted to reboot the series, they should go
> all-out. Entirely new cast (including a new M), no more gunbarrel, new
> Bond theme, the works. What I see happening here is a half-assed
> attempt at saying, "Bond is new, young, and hip now!" while still being
> able to say to those of us who grew up on the classic Bond, "Hey, it's
> ok, the Bond you knew and loved is still here, just updated some."
>
> EON's going to have to choose with this one. Either go all the way,
> disavow any knowledge of the past Bond episodes, write a new theme
> song, come up with a new opening sequence (maybe even doing away with
> the classic pre-credit), and pray that the new generation finds Bond as
> cool as those of us who still count "From Russia with Love" among our
> favorite movies, or pray that the "have your cake and eat it too"
> approach works far better than I expect it to. It's not like the Bond
> franchise was in dire straits to begin with. Batman was dead and buried
> when Batman Begins was conceived. There were always plans for Bond 21,
> which means there was no reason to pull a reboot.
>
> Reboots are done for two reasons. Either the franchise is on life
> support (as was the case with Batman) or long dead (Superman), or the
> core audience has outgrown it and a new generation of readers is needed
> (Spider-man comics). Neither one applies to Bond, as the series was not
> dying off, and the new generation of fans (my generation, technically
> speaking) was accepting it right alongside those who had been watching
> since Dr. No. Rebooting Bond is a frivolous and pointless move--if
> we're going to use the "Bond should be 85 by now!" argument, then why
> wouldn't we have started hearing about rebooting 30 years ago, when
> Bond would've arguably been pushing MI6 retirement age (I believe Bond
> states the statutory retirement age of 45 in one of the novels)?
>
> I've always wanted to see Casino Royale done on film, the right way.
> I'm not convinced that EON will do it the right way, as I half-expect
> the novel's thrilling climax to be turned into some machine-gun battle
> through the flames, and the stunning twist at the end of the novel to
> be revealed much earlier on, before we have so much invested in the
> character, so that it doesn't turn audiences off emotionally--if they
> don't just throw it away entirely and have everyone go off happily ever
> after. Still, it has to be closer than the 1967 spoof version, and it
> might be a great movie that blows me away. Doesn't change the fact that
> I'm worried for the Bond franchise right now. Something as drastic as a
> reboot isn't done without damn good reason. "Batman and Robin" is a
> damn good reason to reboot and pretend the other series never happened.
> Noticing that your core audience stopped reading comics twenty years
> ago is a good reason. Updating a character's storyline that you'd never
> had a problem stretching to the limit before is not, and it's a move
> that, IMHO, endangers the entire series' survival.
>
> And Daniel Craig...ugh. Watch "Sin City" and tell me that Clive Owen
> isn't the perfect Bond.
>
> -Ben Corby
> "Yes, dammit, I'm still alive."
>
Vorheriges Thema:Casino Royale TRAILER (in French)
Nächstes Thema:David Arnold on HOT FUZZ
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 03:21:53 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,13620 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered