Since it's a slowish day -

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

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Since it's a slowish day -

Since it's a slowish day - [message #293281]

Do, 29 Juni 2006 01:30

phil.gerrard1

I checked back and I don't think this has been posted before. (If it
has, I probably did it myself, in which case this is further evidence,
for those who need it, of incipient senility.) From the British
actors' directory Spotlight:

http://www.spotlightcd.com/hallfame/default.asp?page=BOND

The Lazenby photo alone is worth following the link for...

Best

Phil

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #293282 ]

Do, 29 Juni 2006 01:37

phil.gerrard1

Incidentally, if you click to the right and work through the links to
the 'Actors' and 'Actresses' faces, there are plenty more Bond faces
besides. The picture of Connery on the following page is worthy of a
caption competition:

http://www.spotlightcd.com/hallfame/default.asp?page=M1957

Phil

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #293283 ]

Do, 29 Juni 2006 01:53

Mac

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Incidentally, if you click to the right and work through the links to
> the 'Actors' and 'Actresses' faces, there are plenty more Bond faces
> besides. The picture of Connery on the following page is worthy of a
> caption competition:
>
> http://www.spotlightcd.com/hallfame/default.asp?page=M1957
>
> Phil

I can't get either link to work. :(
--
-- Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of the upcoming PTERODACTYLS ON A PLANE."

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #293284 ]

Do, 29 Juni 2006 01:58

Mac

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Incidentally, if you click to the right and work through the links to
> the 'Actors' and 'Actresses' faces, there are plenty more Bond faces
> besides. The picture of Connery on the following page is worthy of a
> caption competition:
>
> http://www.spotlightcd.com/hallfame/default.asp?page=M1957
>
> Phil

How'd have thought Lionel Blair could look so tough!!!
--
-- Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of a multitude of sins in a photo album."

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #293285 ]

Do, 29 Juni 2006 02:00

Mac

Mac wrote:
> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>> Incidentally, if you click to the right and work through the links to
>> the 'Actors' and 'Actresses' faces, there are plenty more Bond faces
>> besides. The picture of Connery on the following page is worthy of a
>> caption competition:
>>
>> http://www.spotlightcd.com/hallfame/default.asp?page=M1957
>>
>> Phil
>
> How'd have thought Lionel Blair could look so tough!!!

So, I've had a few. Fuck off....
--
-- Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of a pished bloke on Usenet."

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #293286 ]

Do, 29 Juni 2006 02:07

phil.gerrard1

Mac wrote:

> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
> of a pished bloke on Usenet."

But, but... how did you know?

Damn - so that must be the spyware my computer keeps warning me
about...

Best

Phil

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #293287 ]

Do, 29 Juni 2006 02:10

The Shadow

Mac wrote:
> Mac wrote:
>> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>>> Incidentally, if you click to the right and work through the links to
>>> the 'Actors' and 'Actresses' faces, there are plenty more Bond faces
>>> besides. The picture of Connery on the following page is worthy of a
>>> caption competition:
>>>
>>> http://www.spotlightcd.com/hallfame/default.asp?page=M1957
>>>
>>> Phil
>> How'd have thought Lionel Blair could look so tough!!!
>
> So, I've had a few. Fuck off....

Now say that with your Michael Caine voice.

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #293290 ]

Do, 29 Juni 2006 02:41

Will Traynor

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #293291 ]

Do, 29 Juni 2006 14:03

matt

Will wrote:
> "phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:1151537836.359276.243280 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Incidentally, if you click to the right and work through the links to
> > the 'Actors' and 'Actresses' faces, there are plenty more Bond faces
> > besides. The picture of Connery on the following page is worthy of a
> > caption competition:
> >
> > http://www.spotlightcd.com/hallfame/default.asp?page=M1957
> >
> > Phil
> >
>
> That's a Roger Moore photo if I ever saw one ;-)

Connery looked unhappy to pose that way. The Jonathan Pryce photo is
fascinating, he resembles John Barry. Some excellent early photos of
Maxwell, Blackman and more. Thanks for sharing this page!

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #293292 ]

Do, 29 Juni 2006 14:34

Tom Zielinski

"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1151537836.359276.243280 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Incidentally, if you click to the right and work through the links to
> the 'Actors' and 'Actresses' faces, there are plenty more Bond faces
> besides. The picture of Connery on the following page is worthy of a
> caption competition:
>
> http://www.spotlightcd.com/hallfame/default.asp?page=M1957

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 the blubbery arms of the soft life have finally caught up to even
me..."

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #293293 ]

Do, 29 Juni 2006 14:37

Tom Zielinski

"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1151537836.359276.243280 [at] i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Incidentally, if you click to the right and work through the links to
> the 'Actors' and 'Actresses' faces, there are plenty more Bond faces
> besides. The picture of Connery on the following page is worthy of a
> caption competition:
>
> http://www.spotlightcd.com/hallfame/default.asp?page=M1957

"Diane, fetch my slippers!"

Tom Zielinski
"That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman."
"Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?"
"No, but I know a bit about lounging on my new velour chesterfield..."

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #293302 ]

Fr, 30 Juni 2006 01:07

phil.gerrard1

Me, Tom:

> > The picture of Connery on the following page is worthy of a
> > caption competition:
> >
> > http://www.spotlightcd.com/hallfame/default.asp?page=M1957
>
> 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 the blubbery arms of the soft life have finally caught up to even
> me..."

LOL!

Apologies in advance for this, but this was my immediate reaction to
the photo:

"...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 as uncomfortable as it might have been, he
would still rather receive a rectal examination than have to give
one..."

Sorry

Phil

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #293304 ]

Fr, 30 Juni 2006 01:18

phil.gerrard1

Matt wrote:

> Connery looked unhappy to pose that way. The Jonathan Pryce photo is
> fascinating, he resembles John Barry. Some excellent early photos of
> Maxwell, Blackman and more. Thanks for sharing this page!

You're more than welcome. What also struck me on looking through the
other pictures, in light of some of the postings we've had over the
years along the lines of 'I've seen this actor's photo, and he looks
right for the part', is just how many actors' photos from the late '50s
and early '60s give off a Bond vibe, no matter how right or wrong the
actor might have been for the part. For example, the guy who looks
most like the image of Bond that Pan were using on the covers of their
books in the early 1960s is Donald Sinden...

Best

Phil

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #293306 ]

Fr, 30 Juni 2006 07:05

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>
> > Connery looked unhappy to pose that way. The Jonathan Pryce photo is
> > fascinating, he resembles John Barry. Some excellent early photos of
> > Maxwell, Blackman and more. Thanks for sharing this page!
>
> You're more than welcome. What also struck me on looking through the
> other pictures, in light of some of the postings we've had over the
> years along the lines of 'I've seen this actor's photo, and he looks
> right for the part', is just how many actors' photos from the late '50s
> and early '60s give off a Bond vibe, no matter how right or wrong the
> actor might have been for the part. For example, the guy who looks
> most like the image of Bond that Pan were using on the covers of their
> books in the early 1960s is Donald Sinden...

--- That's because for the most part men looked like MEN back then and
exuded a natural masculinity. That was the kind of era it was. And
Bond requires that masculine edge to give him his grit. That's why I
never bought into Moore and Brosnan. Both of them lacked that edge,
that whiff of real and gritty masculinity. One was a bit too foppish
and the other was more often a pretty boy in poseur mode than being any
kind of tangible Bond. It's hard to say at this point if Craig himself
might be able to project that same kind of needed masculinity [not to
be confused with his more natural ruffian aura] and I'm certainly not
going to base any conclusions on carefully selected brief clips shown
to date which are designed more to give the easily gullible segment of
Bond fans a superficial rush rather than any glimmer of a genuinely
masculine portrayal of a new 007. For example, the famous clip that
was often repeated on the tube back in '71 to promo DAF, of Connery
casually walking over to a bikini-clad girl lying on the beach as she
asks him who he is and he delivers his Bond, James Bond intro clearly
showed how Connery reeked with masculinity without even trying. That's
the secret to an actor being masculine: when you don't see them sweat
trying, they just are.

But you're kind of right about Donald Sinden. The small pic of him
also struck me in an instant flash as his looking a bit like a Clive
Owen type, but when I clicked on it and got a larger view of him, the
Owen resemblance evaporated to be replaced by a kind of look vaguely
reminiscent of a Robert Taylor without the moustache. He probably
would've been cinematically suitable as a 50s era Bond.

>
> Best
>
> Phil

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295561 ]

Fr, 30 Juni 2006 16:24

Paul Clarke

WQ wrote:
and I'm certainly not
> going to base any conclusions on carefully selected brief clips shown
> to date which are designed more to give the easily gullible segment of
> Bond fans a superficial rush rather than any glimmer of a genuinely
> masculine portrayal of a new 007.

So, because I think CR looks very promising and think that Craig has the
potential to make a good Bond, I'm "easily gullible"?

And the point about not basing conclusions on "carefully selected brief
clips" is interesting, given that you have posted several times on how
Craig is wrong for the part based on the same evidence that 007 fans
have concluded he could be excellent.

--
==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 putting a secret agent in a gorilla suit.

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295562 ]

Fr, 30 Juni 2006 17:03

Paul Clarke wrote:
> WQ wrote:
> and I'm certainly not
> > going to base any conclusions on carefully selected brief clips shown
> > to date which are designed more to give the easily gullible segment of
> > Bond fans a superficial rush rather than any glimmer of a genuinely
> > masculine portrayal of a new 007.
>
> So, because I think CR looks very promising and think that Craig has the
> potential to make a good Bond, I'm "easily gullible"?

--- Every film and actor has "potential," but that potential is rarely
demonstrated in clips. Either the "magnetism" of the star or the
appeal of the story is there in the clips or it isn't. One can't
certainly find any real appeal to the story yet by what's been patched
together so far, going from the p.o.v. of a typical moviegoer who isn't
necessarily a Bond fan. However, what that typical moviegoer would see
from what's been patched together is just another tiresome exercise of
hyperkinetic action stunt work for the most part, virtually
indistinguishable from others. This is something that may work on a
visceral level, hence the gullibility of the typical moviegoer who
absolutely loves to eat that kind of stuff up, but does nothing to go
beyond showing how many action poses Craig can do.

As for the magnetism part of it, vis-a-vis the masculinity discussed,
he has yet to demonstrate that masculine magnetism [as projected by
actors of the 50s and pointed out by Phil] in a way that branches out
beyond looking like a soccer hooligan. In other words, when you come
right down to the "aura" of Craig, he just doesn't have it. At least
not by the clips selected. On the other hand, if EON maybe was more
thoughtful about its choice of clips and showed more of him in
non-action scenes to reveal what hidden side of him, masculine or
otherwise, he does have to offer that can work for Bond, then that's
something that would be seen, or not, through the clips. I wonder what
EON is hiding by not showing more of that side of him. Right now,
though, EON's focus is on pumping up the adrenaline more than Craig or
the film's story, and in an age when moviegoers have been so weaned on
adrenaline-soaked clips, that's all that seems to matters to most of
them, which is why I don't buy it yet because I simply dismiss
action-stressed clips as junk food for the eyes and it only gets in the
way of seeing any REAL potential in Craig.

> And the point about not basing conclusions on "carefully selected brief
> clips" is interesting, given that you have posted several times on how
> Craig is wrong for the part based on the same evidence that 007 fans
> have concluded he could be excellent.

--- From my p.o.v., he was wrong for the part the day EON picked him
way before they started filming and way way before the first clips were
released.

>
> --
> ==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 putting a secret agent in a gorilla suit."

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295565 ]

Sa, 01 Juli 2006 00:06

Mac

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295569 ]

Sa, 01 Juli 2006 03:24

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> But you're kind of right about Donald Sinden. The small pic of him
> also struck me in an instant flash as his looking a bit like a Clive
> Owen type, but when I clicked on it and got a larger view of him, the
> Owen resemblance evaporated to be replaced by a kind of look vaguely
> reminiscent of a Robert Taylor without the moustache. He probably
> would've been cinematically suitable as a 50s era Bond.

You've missed my point here, but that's partly my fault. What I was
trying to point out was that if you try to pick potential Bonds from
actors' photographs alone, as has been done several times on this list,
you're likely to end up with some astonishing pieces of miscasting.
>From his publicity photo, Donald Sinden might indeed look like a good
choice, but his performance style is utterly wrong for the part. Since
there's no reason why you would have seen Sinden act - I don't think he
did anything much which was well known on your side of the Atlantic -
there's no way for you to have known that.

The same is also true of the many of the other '50s and '60s actors
who I thought might look to a casual viewer like they might have been
right for the part. What I was trying to say was that in performance
they would have been disastrous despite their photo seeming to give off
the requisite 'vibe'.

> That's because for the most part men looked like MEN back then and
> exuded a natural masculinity. That was the kind of era it was.

Mike Myers has built a hugely successful movie franchise by mocking
what previous generations of moviegoers considered 'natural
masculinity'. That should tell you something. To choose obvious
examples, Bond's treatment of Pussy Galore and Patricia Fearing (and
their subsequent reactions), which would have looked manly and
commanding to '60s audiences, would look crass, creepy, and laughable
if replicated in a modern movie. Of course this doesn't diminish GF's
and TB's status as great Bond films since any sensible viewer sees a
movie in the context of the era in which it was made. You just have to
accept that times have changed and adapt accordingly, without
necessarily abandoning your core values. The statement above suggests
you simply refuse to do any of these things, WQ.

> On the other hand, if EON maybe was more
> thoughtful about its choice of clips and showed more of him in
> non-action scenes to reveal what hidden side of him, masculine or
> otherwise, he does have to offer that can work for Bond, then that's
> something that would be seen, or not, through the clips. I wonder what
> EON is hiding by not showing more of that side of him. Right now,
> though, EON's focus is on pumping up the adrenaline more than Craig or
> the film's story, and in an age when moviegoers have been so weaned on
> adrenaline-soaked clips, that's all that seems to matters to most of
> them, which is why I don't buy it yet because I simply dismiss
> action-stressed clips as junk food for the eyes and it only gets in the
> way of seeing any REAL potential in Craig.

Good grief.

Please remind me: for which Bond films since 1962 did the trailers and
preview clips do anything much more than focus on the action and
spectacle of the upcoming movie? How many Bond movies have been
publicised in advance on the basis of their non-action scenes or the
thespian skills of the new actor? This is one of the most
breathtakingly ridiculous criticisms of CR and EON you've made so far,
and that comment about wondering what EON have got to hide is worthy of
the most paranoid conspiracy theorist.

How many non-action scenes or clips from DN, OHMSS, LALD, TLD, and GE
did anybody see a full half-year before those movies were released?
Here's a quick clue: the answer is something approximating 'next to
none'.

Care to tell me what EON were trying to hide then?

> From my p.o.v., he was wrong for the part the day EON picked him
> way before they started filming and way way before the first clips were
> released.

Or, as I see it, you saw a photo of Craig half a year ago, made up your
mind on the spot, and have gone to increasingly convoluted lengths to
damn the whole project ever since.

Phil

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295574 ]

Sa, 01 Juli 2006 04:12

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > But you're kind of right about Donald Sinden. The small pic of him
> > also struck me in an instant flash as his looking a bit like a Clive
> > Owen type, but when I clicked on it and got a larger view of him, the
> > Owen resemblance evaporated to be replaced by a kind of look vaguely
> > reminiscent of a Robert Taylor without the moustache. He probably
> > would've been cinematically suitable as a 50s era Bond.
>
> You've missed my point here, but that's partly my fault. What I was
> trying to point out was that if you try to pick potential Bonds from
> actors' photographs alone, as has been done several times on this list,
> you're likely to end up with some astonishing pieces of miscasting.
> >From his publicity photo, Donald Sinden might indeed look like a good
> choice, but his performance style is utterly wrong for the part. Since
> there's no reason why you would have seen Sinden act - I don't think he
> did anything much which was well known on your side of the Atlantic -
> there's no way for you to have known that.

--- True, I haven't a clue as to who Sinden is, or was, nor can I
recall anything I might've seen him in, so I wouldn't know of his
acting style. But then, I never thought Roger Moore was right for the
part of Bond and I knew his acting style from his Saint and Persuaders
series. More or less the same for Brosnan and what I saw of him in
Remington Steele, the first season of which I quite liked actually. So
go figure.

> The same is also true of the many of the other '50s and '60s actors
> who I thought might look to a casual viewer like they might have been
> right for the part. What I was trying to say was that in performance
> they would have been disastrous despite their photo seeming to give off
> the requisite 'vibe'.
>
> > That's because for the most part men looked like MEN back then and
> > exuded a natural masculinity. That was the kind of era it was.
>
> Mike Myers has built a hugely successful movie franchise by mocking
> what previous generations of moviegoers considered 'natural
> masculinity'. That should tell you something. To choose obvious
> examples, Bond's treatment of Pussy Galore and Patricia Fearing (and
> their subsequent reactions), which would have looked manly and
> commanding to '60s audiences, would look crass, creepy, and laughable
> if replicated in a modern movie. Of course this doesn't diminish GF's
> and TB's status as great Bond films since any sensible viewer sees a
> movie in the context of the era in which it was made. You just have to
> accept that times have changed and adapt accordingly, without
> necessarily abandoning your core values. The statement above suggests
> you simply refuse to do any of these things, WQ.

--- I guess you're not getting my masculinity point. It's when someone
like Sean Connery can still do a movie at the age of 69 [Entrapment]
and still exude more masculinity without trying than the Top 10 actors
we've got today put together. Masculinity in its most basic, innate
and primal sense is timeless for the man who possess it. It only
becomes in vogue when an era deems it so, but it doesn't negate someone
who has it and manages to keep it throughout most of his life. In
other words, it's not about eras, it's about the man. It's simply that
Connery the man just so happened to be part of that era that embraced
the "masculine look" or "aura" which he was lucky enough to have at the
time - and still does.

> > On the other hand, if EON maybe was more
> > thoughtful about its choice of clips and showed more of him in
> > non-action scenes to reveal what hidden side of him, masculine or
> > otherwise, he does have to offer that can work for Bond, then that's
> > something that would be seen, or not, through the clips. I wonder what
> > EON is hiding by not showing more of that side of him. Right now,
> > though, EON's focus is on pumping up the adrenaline more than Craig or
> > the film's story, and in an age when moviegoers have been so weaned on
> > adrenaline-soaked clips, that's all that seems to matters to most of
> > them, which is why I don't buy it yet because I simply dismiss
> > action-stressed clips as junk food for the eyes and it only gets in the
> > way of seeing any REAL potential in Craig.
>
> Good grief.
>
> Please remind me: for which Bond films since 1962 did the trailers and
> preview clips do anything much more than focus on the action and
> spectacle of the upcoming movie? How many Bond movies have been
> publicised in advance on the basis of their non-action scenes or the
> thespian skills of the new actor? This is one of the most
> breathtakingly ridiculous criticisms of CR and EON you've made so far,
> and that comment about wondering what EON have got to hide is worthy of
> the most paranoid conspiracy theorist.

--- I dismiss virtually all trailers, teasers and previews. Too often
I've been disappointed by the final product to say that trailers are of
any real value. I'm sure I've seen some cleverly crafted ones that I
enjoyed and thought from those that they'd be films really worth
seeing, and if I thought real hard enough I'd probably remember which
ones they were, but they'd be very few in number. Face the fact that
the trailer is not the movie. Even the old Bond trailers for the early
Connery films were pretty goofy looking, but I'm old enough to recall
having seen them when I was a kid and noting something unusual about
them. What that unusual quality was was Sean Connery himself, and
that's because even back then he struck me as looking very different
from a lot of male actors at the time, and uniquely masculine, and that
alone made him stand out in my mind, enough to interest me into seeing
the first two Bond flicks [also my first two] when they were reissued
as a double feature back in 1965. And not only did I watch them that
first time and become immediately hooked on the series and the man, but
I went back to that theater five days later, plunked down another 75
cents I believe it was, and watched them over again. Connery had this
singular blend of being able to play out danger and make you feel very
comfortable watching him do it. So if a trailer is going to work,
there needs to be something in that trailer that transcends whatever is
shown at face value. Most trailers aren't constructed in that way and
so what you're seeing is actually a false representation of the film
that they [the movie industry in general] are trying to sell you on.
That's why I dismiss trailers. They may be amusing to watch, but they
are not the movies themselves.

> How many non-action scenes or clips from DN, OHMSS, LALD, TLD, and GE
> did anybody see a full half-year before those movies were released?
> Here's a quick clue: the answer is something approximating 'next to
> none'.
>
> Care to tell me what EON were trying to hide then?

--- Craig's face? Don't seem to see too many good close-ups of him, do
you? You had plenty of close-ups for the other guys.

> > From my p.o.v., he was wrong for the part the day EON picked him
> > way before they started filming and way way before the first clips were
> > released.
>
> Or, as I see it, you saw a photo of Craig half a year ago, made up your
> mind on the spot, and have gone to increasingly convoluted lengths to
> damn the whole project ever since.

--- Well, yeah, you know the story by now. But like I always keep
saying: anything's possible. CR just might deliver the goods in ways
that Bond films haven't in decades. But it's not delivering the goods
as I define the goods to be in the form of a teaser or trailer. And
it's not the only movie to not be able to do that. Just wait for the
finished product, don't run the risk of being extremely disappointed
because the film didn't live up to the trailer.

>
> Phil

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295578 ]

Sa, 01 Juli 2006 05:01

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> --- I dismiss virtually all trailers, teasers and previews.

You haven't done so with CR, and have based your negative prognosis for
the movie upon precisely this level of evidence. For heaven's sake,
anybody who has the minimal intelligence required to read earlier posts
in a thread can see that earlier today you used the CR trailer to damn
the film in advance.

> Craig's face? Don't seem to see too many good close-ups of him, do
> you? You had plenty of close-ups for the other guys.

Fine. If you want to claim this is true, then prove it and don't give
me any crap about 'it feels like..' or 'my gut instinct tells me...'.
Show me the figures. Learn the difference between medium close up,
close up, and extreme close up, go back and watch each of the trailers
for each of the 21 Bond films again, take into account the number of
'close-ups' as against the numbers of trailers and films each actor
appeared in, then give me the stats.

You're not prepared to waste your time doing that? I don't blame you.
However, if you can't provide evidence to support an assertion I'd
suggest not making that assertion in the first place.

Phil

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295579 ]

Sa, 01 Juli 2006 05:16

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- I dismiss virtually all trailers, teasers and previews.
>
> You haven't done so with CR, and have based your negative prognosis for
> the movie upon precisely this level of evidence. For heaven's sake,
> anybody who has the minimal intelligence required to read earlier posts
> in a thread can see that earlier today you used the CR trailer to damn
> the film in advance.

--- I dismiss it in the sense that it isn't "The Movie," but there are
those in this group who view the trailer as "The Movie" - the movie
they expect, or hope, to see. I have no such delusions and if I'm
going to look at it the way others are looking at it, then I'll rip it
apart on those terms. But I still essentially and fundamentally
dismiss it because it's not "The Movie," and I always keeps saying that
anything's possible when it comes to "The Movie" itself.

> > Craig's face? Don't seem to see too many good close-ups of him, do
> > you? You had plenty of close-ups for the other guys.
>
> Fine. If you want to claim this is true, then prove it and don't give
> me any crap about 'it feels like..' or 'my gut instinct tells me...'.
> Show me the figures. Learn the difference between medium close up,
> close up, and extreme close up, go back and watch each of the trailers
> for each of the 21 Bond films again, take into account the number of
> 'close-ups' as against the numbers of trailers and films each actor
> appeared in, then give me the stats.

> You're not prepared to waste your time doing that? I don't blame you.
> However, if you can't provide evidence to support an assertion I'd
> suggest not making that assertion in the first place.

--- Better yet, pull out all those old Bond film trailers yourself from
Connery onwards, count the number of close-ups on each of them, then
match that figure with Craig. You wouldn't believe me otherwise. But
then the loophole here is that we haven't yet seen the final theatrical
trailer for CR against which to make the comparison. Or is it out now?
It's been a while since I hit the theaters.

>
> Phil

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295591 ]

Sa, 01 Juli 2006 18:40

phil.gerrard1

*Sigh.* I give in, WQ. Believe whatever you want to believe. All I
have left to say is that if EON are trying to hide Craig (or indeed
almost any other aspect of CR) from the viewing public, they're doing
a piss-poor job.

Phil

FIFA [message #295594 ]

Sa, 01 Juli 2006 20:13

Tom Zielinski

Condolences to our English friends on a tough lose to Portugal.

I watched the last half and the penalty kicks. High drama indeed. A tough
way to lose.

Tom Zielinski

Re: FIFA [message #295595 ]

Sa, 01 Juli 2006 23:44

Rhino

On Sat, 1 Jul 2006 13:13:09 -0500, "Tom Zielinski" <rtomz [at] comcast.net>
wrote:

>Condolences to our English friends on a tough lose to Portugal.
>
>I watched the last half and the penalty kicks. High drama indeed. A tough
>way to lose.
>
>
>
>
>
>Tom Zielinski
>

Thanks Z.

We're used to it by now.

Doesn't make it any easier of course. I cam only take consolation from
the fact that I have France in our firm's sweepstake and will get £64
if they win the final :)

Re: FIFA [message #295601 ]

So, 02 Juli 2006 12:04

Mac

Rhino wrote:

> Doesn't make it any easier of course. I cam only take consolation from
> the fact that I have France in our firm's sweepstake and will get £64
> if they win the final :)

Watching Zidane turn back the clock and put on a majestic display summed
up exactly why it's called the beautiful game.
--
-- Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of a World Cup penalty shootout for England."

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295615 ]

Mo, 03 Juli 2006 09:09

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> *Sigh.* I give in, WQ. Believe whatever you want to believe. All I
> have left to say is that if EON are trying to hide Craig (or indeed
> almost any other aspect of CR) from the viewing public, they're doing
> a piss-poor job.

--- I don't know how you can accurately measure whether EON has been
truly successful or not in revealing Craig because to this day I still
run into people who not only don't know that he's the new Bond nor who
Craig himself is, but some are even still blissfully unaware that a new
Bond film is being made. Sure, the film teasers show Craig, but we
really don't get a good look of him because either they're long shots
or flash shots. Only two shots stand out in mind as good looks of
Craig, one of them being more of a profile shot than a full shot of his
face: the one where he's talking to M about the short careers of 007s,
the other being that shot of him at the casino table when he gives that
deliberate steely-eyed and pursed-lipped look, which he must seriously
refrain from doing because it's just too consciously projected a look,
one that really plays badly to the camera almost as Austin Powers
spoof. Aside from that, his face barely registers on the screen. Now
I'm talking only about the film teasers, not still photos, because it's
the film teasers that really get wider exposure via the net and
entertainment magazine shows on TV. Still photos get more selective
and diffused exposure in print media and on the net. So yeah, going by
film teasers to date alone, I'd say EON is trying to hide something.
That may change with the official film trailer, which could even be out
now, I don't know, I haven't seen it yet.

>
> Phil

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295617 ]

Mo, 03 Juli 2006 15:02

phil.gerrard1

The first teaser trailer for DAD:

http://www.jamesbond.com/bond20/features/feature_07.php

One side-on close-up of Brosnan, much shorter than either allocated to
Craig, with every other shot of him being a quick-cut snippet from an
action scene. If the CR trailer tells you that EON have something to
hide with Craig, then judging by this they must really have been
worried about Brosnan.

I could do this film by film if you want. Any argument that Craig is
deliberately being downplayed in the CR trailer is a conspiracy theory,
pure and simple.

Phil

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295618 ]

Mo, 03 Juli 2006 15:47

Rich Handley

"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> said:
>I could do this film by film if you want. Any argument that Craig is
>deliberately being downplayed in the CR trailer is a conspiracy theory,
>pure and simple.

Well done, completely agreed. The rhetoric has become very tiring.

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295619 ]

Mo, 03 Juli 2006 15:55

Tom Zielinski

"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1151931766.613596.96190 [at] a14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> The first teaser trailer for DAD:
>
> http://www.jamesbond.com/bond20/features/feature_07.php
>
> One side-on close-up of Brosnan, much shorter than either allocated to
> Craig, with every other shot of him being a quick-cut snippet from an
> action scene. If the CR trailer tells you that EON have something to
> hide with Craig, then judging by this they must really have been
> worried about Brosnan.
>
> I could do this film by film if you want. Any argument that Craig is
> deliberately being downplayed in the CR trailer is a conspiracy theory,
> pure and simple.

People must really hate when you are right, Phil.

;)

A damn good teaser too. The silhouetted women at the beginning are
beautifully done as is the ice-gun. Would that have been (I'm thinking yes)
the superb Danny Kleinman's work?

Tom Zielinski
"That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman."
"Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?"
"No, but I know that the Die Another Day affair had some weaknesses, but it
was a damn fine film..."

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295622 ]

Mo, 03 Juli 2006 17:12

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> The first teaser trailer for DAD:
>
> http://www.jamesbond.com/bond20/features/feature_07.php
>
> One side-on close-up of Brosnan, much shorter than either allocated to
> Craig, with every other shot of him being a quick-cut snippet from an
> action scene. If the CR trailer tells you that EON have something to
> hide with Craig, then judging by this they must really have been
> worried about Brosnan.
>
> I could do this film by film if you want. Any argument that Craig is
> deliberately being downplayed in the CR trailer is a conspiracy theory,
> pure and simple.

--- Nice try, Phil. But if you're going to make a comparison, make
sure it's done on a level playing field. Remember, this is Craig's
first Bond, so the teaser you should actually be comparing it against
is Brosnan's first teaser, as both introduce a new actor in the role.
By the time DAD came out, everybody knew who Brosnan was and what he
looked like so you really didn't need to see his face much in a teaser.
Now that I viewed the CR teaser again, I noted 3, not 2, close-ups, or
more like medium or medium-close shots, of Craig in it, the third being
with him getting off the plane. If Brosnan had only 3 such shots over
the same minute plus long length in the GoldenEye teaser, then I'll
admit defeat - unless even back then EON might still not have been
fully convinced about Brosnan as well. But if Brosnan had at least
double the number of close shots than Craig, then I think that sends a
bit of a subliminal message that EON might be not that confident with
the present Bond they want the world to see. I did a search for the
GoldenEye teaser or trailer, but after several minutes it didn't seem
like it was going to be an easy find, so unless it's found for real
comparision purpose, I guess we really won't know if EON is trying to
hide their Bond or not under the weight of action stunts and massive
explosions. This never happened to the other guy.

>
> Phil

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295623 ]

Di, 04 Juli 2006 03:02

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> --- Nice try, Phil. But if you're going to make a comparison, make
> sure it's done on a level playing field. Remember, this is Craig's
> first Bond, so the teaser you should actually be comparing it against
> is Brosnan's first teaser, as both introduce a new actor in the role.

OK, let's do this, disregarding TV spots and comparing like with like
as far as is possible (apologies to those who are sick of the subject):

I haven't been able to find Brosnan's first teaser on the internet, and
the cinematic trailers for GE included on the DVD are full trailers
rather than teasers. In the first I counted eleven true close-ups of
Brosnan, with the rest of the footage of him being from action
sequences. This trailer is three times longer than the CR teaser. The
trailer doesn't end on a shot of Brosnan as Bond.

With Dalton it's easier because the DVD clearly states which are the
teasers. So what do we have here? In the US version, four decent
close-ups of Dalton at a generous estimate, several shots of Dalton in
action mode, and many action shots in which one can't see Dalton at
all. The UK version gets an extra couple of close-up shots of Dalton
which last for less than a second each. Both teasers end with a shot
of Dalton as Bond followed by a snippet of his gunbarrel sequence.

Now to Moore's teaser trailer as included on the LALD DVD. His name
gets mentioned, and he gets three close-ups if one is being extremely
generous. (Two are from the bus chase and one from the boat chase, all
are MCUs at best, and none show him in repose, so to speak.) The
trailer consists of as many shots of vehicles blowing up and crashing
into each other as of shots of Bond in action. Also, Moore's not heard
uttering a single line of dialogue throughout the teaser. The teaser
doesn't end on a shot of Moore as Bond.

The OHMSS DVD includes only the cinematic release trailer. Six
close-ups of Lazenby in a trailer twice as long as the teaser for CR,
with a quarter of the trailer devoted entirely to Diana Rigg, and a
good half showing action scenes in which Lazenby is hard to pick out if
indeed he's there at all. The trailer ends on an insert of Lazenby
saying 'this never happened to the other fella'.

Finally, DN. No teaser trailer on the DVD. The full cinematic trailer
includes nine clear close-ups of Connery, although again some are brief
snippets of him in action mode. Again the trailer is twice as long as
the teaser for CR. The trailer ends with a shot of Connery and Andress
kissing, giving the viewer a nice glimpse of the back of Connery's
head.

Anybody who owns the Bond DVDs can confirm that I'm not making any of
this up.

Your move, WQ: explain how the CR teaser, when watched in the context
of the above teasers and full trailers, demonstrates a deliberate
attempt by EON to hide something about Craig.

Phil

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295624 ]

Di, 04 Juli 2006 03:25

phil.gerrard1

Tom wrote:

> People must really hate when you are right, Phil.
>
> ;)

I know, when I get into an argument where I think I've got a logical
case I behave like an obesessive/compulsive version of Mr Spock. It's
best to ignore some of these threads, leave me to get it out of my
system, and to take my word that I'm a little less, um, *intense* in
person :-)

> A damn good teaser too. The silhouetted women at the beginning are
> beautifully done as is the ice-gun. Would that have been (I'm thinking yes)
> the superb Danny Kleinman's work?

I believe so, and like the idea that the CR credits will be a stylised
retelling of Bond's past...

Best

Phil

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295626 ]

Di, 04 Juli 2006 06:28

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Nice try, Phil. But if you're going to make a comparison, make
> > sure it's done on a level playing field. Remember, this is Craig's
> > first Bond, so the teaser you should actually be comparing it against
> > is Brosnan's first teaser, as both introduce a new actor in the role.
>
> OK, let's do this, disregarding TV spots and comparing like with like
> as far as is possible (apologies to those who are sick of the subject):
>
> I haven't been able to find Brosnan's first teaser on the internet, and
> the cinematic trailers for GE included on the DVD are full trailers
> rather than teasers. In the first I counted eleven true close-ups of
> Brosnan, with the rest of the footage of him being from action
> sequences. This trailer is three times longer than the CR teaser. The
> trailer doesn't end on a shot of Brosnan as Bond.
>
> With Dalton it's easier because the DVD clearly states which are the
> teasers. So what do we have here? In the US version, four decent
> close-ups of Dalton at a generous estimate, several shots of Dalton in
> action mode, and many action shots in which one can't see Dalton at
> all. The UK version gets an extra couple of close-up shots of Dalton
> which last for less than a second each. Both teasers end with a shot
> of Dalton as Bond followed by a snippet of his gunbarrel sequence.
>
> Now to Moore's teaser trailer as included on the LALD DVD. His name
> gets mentioned, and he gets three close-ups if one is being extremely
> generous. (Two are from the bus chase and one from the boat chase, all
> are MCUs at best, and none show him in repose, so to speak.) The
> trailer consists of as many shots of vehicles blowing up and crashing
> into each other as of shots of Bond in action. Also, Moore's not heard
> uttering a single line of dialogue throughout the teaser. The teaser
> doesn't end on a shot of Moore as Bond.
>
> The OHMSS DVD includes only the cinematic release trailer. Six
> close-ups of Lazenby in a trailer twice as long as the teaser for CR,
> with a quarter of the trailer devoted entirely to Diana Rigg, and a
> good half showing action scenes in which Lazenby is hard to pick out if
> indeed he's there at all. The trailer ends on an insert of Lazenby
> saying 'this never happened to the other fella'.
>
> Finally, DN. No teaser trailer on the DVD. The full cinematic trailer
> includes nine clear close-ups of Connery, although again some are brief
> snippets of him in action mode. Again the trailer is twice as long as
> the teaser for CR. The trailer ends with a shot of Connery and Andress
> kissing, giving the viewer a nice glimpse of the back of Connery's
> head.
>
> Anybody who owns the Bond DVDs can confirm that I'm not making any of
> this up.
>
> Your move, WQ: explain how the CR teaser, when watched in the context
> of the above teasers and full trailers, demonstrates a deliberate
> attempt by EON to hide something about Craig.

--- Well, I commend you for having gone through all that. And I
wouldn't argue with any of it since I'm sure you were pretty decided on
getting the count right and I'll abide by it. Besides, I've seen most
of those trailers already and by general memory alone I think I can
pretty well confirm your conclusions. However, it's interesting to note
how, by your count, EON's vote of confidence for a new Bond actor in
his first Bond film may be determined by the number of close views of
that actor in the trailer for his debut appearance [but not in the
teasers]. Brosnan wins with 11, Connery gets 9, Lazenby 6, Dalton 4
and Moore 3. It's also interesting to note how the vote of confidence
between EON and myself can be viewed as more or less identical,
certainly identical in terms of order, with the last four. But why did
Brosnan get 11? I can only speculate that after a 6-year absence from
the screen, the longest in 007 history, the producers may've wanted to
ensure that moviegoers really knew that Bond was still alive and who
that new Bond was this time around; that, coupled with what by then had
become superhyped movie marketing and Barb and Mike's increased
involvement behind the scenes in determining the direction of the
series. So the 11 count is probably a bit skewed as a result. If
there hadn't been a six-year gap and only the usual two, perhaps
Brosnan might've gotten a 5, just one more than Dalton to wash out his
tenure. This is, of course, if there was any sort of conscious effort
on the producers' part to emphasize or de-emphasize the actor in the
trailer. Perhaps if not consciously, then there seemed to be
subconsciously. Either way, the order, save for Brosnan, reads right
in terms of the visceral impact and/or acceptance or view of the
actor's portrayal as a legitimate Bond. Again, Brosnan's case I
already explained earlier.

Ok, so now this is where it gets really interesting. Let's forget the
first four actors and look at just Brosnan. He got 11 for the reasons
I mentioned and which I view as speculation as to why. Now we have
Craig who is not only coming on the scene as Bond after the second
longest gap in Bond history, but also as an atypical, reformulated,
blond Bond. You would think that if EON, with Barb and Mike now in
firmer control than at the start of the Brosnan period, was to follow
the same rationale as they did for Brosnan [i.e. superhyping the
marketing of the film and the actor as well as pumping up the number of
close views to ensure that moviegoers burn Craig's image as the new 007
into their minds], then in the official trailer for CR, Craig would
have to have at least 11 close shots as a vote of confidence in the man
by EON. Anything less than Brosnan's total would bespeak of
disappointment or uncertainty in their choice, but it wouldn't mean
they're considering getting rid of him. Moore only got 3 and he stuck
around for 12 years. The count, I suppose, can almost be seen as a
reflection of how well each actor physically embodied Bond. Excluding
Brosnan's aberrant count, Connery embodied the role with the highest
vote of confidence and with this logic, Lazenby impressed very well too
in the eyes of EON. So I guess we'll just have to wait until the
official CR trailer comes out to see how well Craig will be viewed by
EON as embodying the physical Bond through his count of close shots,
since comparisons between teasers is impossible as some of them don't
exist for that purpose, and between teaser and trailer isn't exactly
fair due to their markedly different lengths. Good dedicated work on
your part, though, to give it all a proper count so far. I'll be
saving this for future reference.

>
> Phil

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295627 ]

Di, 04 Juli 2006 14:12

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> Brosnan wins with 11, Connery gets 9, Lazenby 6, Dalton 4
> and Moore 3.

Yes, but as I said, the Dalton and Moore scores are for teasers, not
full trailers. A release trailer is usually twice to three times as
long as a teaser, so those results and Craig's have to be seen in this
light.

Comparing the LALD, TLD, and CR teasers, with the DN, OHMSS and GE
trailers, you might expect the number of close-ups in a full trailer to
rise proportionately from what would be seen in a teaser of a third to
half the length. Multiply the number of close-ups in the teasers by
two and a half times so that roughly they take into account the
difference in length, and the rounded figures read Connery 9, Lazenby
6, Moore 8, Dalton 10, Brosnan 11, Craig 8. If you want to draw firm
conclusions from that, go ahead. Personally I would say those numbers
are way too close to each other to mean anything at all.

> then in the official trailer for CR, Craig would
> have to have at least 11 close shots as a vote of confidence in the man
> by EON. Anything less than Brosnan's total would bespeak of
> disappointment or uncertainty in their choice, but it wouldn't mean
> they're considering getting rid of him.

I think that's a very silly basis on which to make such a judgement. I
doubt anybody at EON is being so anal as to count the exact number of
close-ups of each actor from trailer to trailer or even to notice such
a thing (unlike me). The point I'm trying to make is about getting
things in perspective, not about getting into hair-splitting arguments
about the precise numbers of close-ups from one trailer to another.

In any case, this is all potentially hugely misleading since it doesn't
take into account different approches to marketing the films, or the
anticipation which withholding the new Bond from the audience can
build. One of the best-remembered and biggest-impact trailers in Bond
history - Brosnan's 'You were expecting someone else?' - would score
incredibly poorly by these standards since technically there's only one
brief close-up of Brosnan in the whole thing. A single high-impact
shot of the lead actor at the end of a trailer in which he doesn't
otherwise appear can be far more significant than twenty close-ups.
Were EON hiding something with their famous build-up to the first
close-up of Connery's in DN, or the similar approach taken to Lazenby
at the beginning of OHMSS? On the contrary. By *not* showing much of
their leading actor, they were increasing his mystique.

I got those figures together precisely because I wanted to point out
that there *isn't* any good reason to claim a direct relationship
between EON's confidence in their leading man and the number of
close-ups allocated to him. That's been my point from the start.

The bottom line here is that there is no credible evidence whatsoever
that Craig is being treated differently from any of his predecessors or
that EON are 'hiding' anything about him.*

Phil

*Incidentally, what qualities of Craig's do you think EON might be
hiding which could have been addressed in the space of a
one-and-a-half-minute teaser?

Perhaps he's got a vestigial tail or something...

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295628 ]

Di, 04 Juli 2006 14:22

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> Brosnan wins with 11, Connery gets 9, Lazenby 6, Dalton 4
> and Moore 3.

Yes, but as I said, the Dalton and Moore scores are for teasers, not
full trailers. A release trailer is usually twice to three times as
long as a teaser, so those results and Craig's have to be seen in this
light.

Comparing the LALD, TLD, and CR teasers, with the DN, OHMSS and GE
trailers, you might expect the number of close-ups in a full trailer to
rise proportionately from what would be seen in a teaser of a third to
half the length. Multiply the number of close-ups in the teasers by
two and a half times so that roughly they take into account the
difference in length, and the rounded figures read Connery 9, Lazenby
6, Moore 8, Dalton 10, Brosnan 11, Craig 8. If you want to draw firm
conclusions from that, go ahead. Personally I would say those numbers
are way too close to each other to mean anything at all.

I'm quoting those figures not to draw any meaning from them, but rather
to demonstrate that they're so similar as to be meaningless.

> then in the official trailer for CR, Craig would
> have to have at least 11 close shots as a vote of confidence in the man
> by EON. Anything less than Brosnan's total would bespeak of
> disappointment or uncertainty in their choice, but it wouldn't mean
> they're considering getting rid of him.

I think that's a very silly basis on which to make such a judgement. I
doubt anybody at EON is being so anal as to count the exact number of
close-ups of each actor from trailer to trailer or even to notice such
a thing (unlike me). The point I'm trying to make is about getting
things in perspective, not about getting into hair-splitting arguments
about the precise numbers of close-ups from one trailer to another.

In any case, this is all potentially hugely misleading since it doesn't
take into account different approches to marketing the films, or the
anticipation which withholding the new Bond from the audience can
build. One of the best-remembered and biggest-impact trailers in Bond
history - Brosnan's 'You were expecting someone else?' - would score
incredibly poorly by these standards since technically there's only one
brief close-up of Brosnan in the whole thing. A single high-impact
shot of the lead actor at the end of a trailer in which he doesn't
otherwise appear can be far more significant than twenty close-ups.
Were EON hiding something with their famous build-up to the first
close-up of Connery's in DN, or the similar approach taken to Lazenby
at the beginning of OHMSS? On the contrary. By *not* showing much of
their leading actor, they were increasing his mystique.

I got those figures together precisely because I wanted to point out
that there *isn't* any good reason to claim a direct relationship
between EON's confidence in their leading man and the number of
close-ups allocated to him. That's been my point from the start.

The bottom line here is that there is no credible evidence whatsoever
that Craig is being treated differently from any of his predecessors or
that EON are 'hiding' anything about him.*

Phil

*Incidentally, what qualities of Craig's do you think EON might be
hiding which could have been addressed in the space of a
one-and-a-half-minute teaser?

Perhaps he's got a vestigial tail or something...

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295629 ]

Di, 04 Juli 2006 14:45

Mac

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295631 ]

Di, 04 Juli 2006 15:08

phil.gerrard1

Mac wrote:

> Brick wall, Phil.

Ah, yeah. I see what you mean. That would explain the mystery
headaches...

Sorry, folks. There's tenacity and then there's pigheadedness, and the
line between them is finer than I sometimes realise.

> EON, MGM and Sony are hiding their leading man? The man whose
> photograph has been in newspapers almost every week since Jan?
> and was in EVERY TV news bulletin in October? The man who is
> the star of a $140m movie being released to the public in
> November?
>
> Yes, they're hiding him because they're terrified his blond hair (that
> nobody knows about*) is going to have audiences running and
> screaming from theatres. Sony are doubtless saying "he's not as
> pretty as Pierce but can be hidden from the public in the teaser
> trailer so we can fool the world into theatres in November."

Heh. You can just picture the audience reaction, can't you? "(sobs)
Why did they lie to us? Why? Why?"

> It's a no-brainer. Stop wasting your gifts, Phil.

Thanks, Mac. I will.

So, in that spirit: Tiny Tim to Roger Moore in three moves or fewer!

Best

Phil

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295632 ]

Di, 04 Juli 2006 15:46

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > Brosnan wins with 11, Connery gets 9, Lazenby 6, Dalton 4
> > and Moore 3.
>
> Yes, but as I said, the Dalton and Moore scores are for teasers, not
> full trailers. A release trailer is usually twice to three times as
> long as a teaser, so those results and Craig's have to be seen in this
> light.

--- I must've misread, what with all the definitions of teasers,
trailers and teaser trailers being bandied about. Got a bit confusing
on the quick read, I guess. So then even those figures aren't
consistent on the same basis.

> Comparing the LALD, TLD, and CR teasers, with the DN, OHMSS and GE
> trailers, you might expect the number of close-ups in a full trailer to
> rise proportionately from what would be seen in a teaser of a third to
> half the length. Multiply the number of close-ups in the teasers by
> two and a half times so that roughly they take into account the
> difference in length, and the rounded figures read Connery 9, Lazenby
> 6, Moore 8, Dalton 10, Brosnan 11, Craig 8. If you want to draw firm
> conclusions from that, go ahead. Personally I would say those numbers
> are way too close to each other to mean anything at all.
>
> I'm quoting those figures not to draw any meaning from them, but rather
> to demonstrate that they're so similar as to be meaningless.
>
> > then in the official trailer for CR, Craig would
> > have to have at least 11 close shots as a vote of confidence in the man
> > by EON. Anything less than Brosnan's total would bespeak of
> > disappointment or uncertainty in their choice, but it wouldn't mean
> > they're considering getting rid of him.
>
> I think that's a very silly basis on which to make such a judgement. I
> doubt anybody at EON is being so anal as to count the exact number of
> close-ups of each actor from trailer to trailer or even to notice such
> a thing (unlike me). The point I'm trying to make is about getting
> things in perspective, not about getting into hair-splitting arguments
> about the precise numbers of close-ups from one trailer to another.

--- I was merely presenting a subliminal argument. I don't think EON
sits around at a committee table to discuss how many close shots are to
be inserted in a trailer either. I do think they would discuss which
best shots to use, of Craig and otherwise, in patching together a
trailer, but then, in subliminal argument terms, one can't argue that a
lot of the decisions made would be based on a positive or negative
visceral level. Film, after all, is a visual medium and the audience
reacts to its visualness first before its content, even if its by a
nanosecond beforehand. It's all subliminal. Most people think they
like something or make decisions based on a conscious level, but they
don't. You may love a Jaguar XKE, but that positive feel for the car
is based on something subliminal the vehicle is projecting to you that
makes you love the car. The same goes for everything else, including
putting together the perfect trailer. And if there aren't enough good
close shots of Craig that subliminally project themselves as such to
put in the trailer, that would be reflected in the final product. It's
the subliminal effect that creates the vote of confidence, or lack of.
But again, this is all just a subliminal argument and that's how I was
approaching it as.

> In any case, this is all potentially hugely misleading since it doesn't
> take into account different approches to marketing the films, or the
> anticipation which withholding the new Bond from the audience can
> build. One of the best-remembered and biggest-impact trailers in Bond
> history - Brosnan's 'You were expecting someone else?' - would score
> incredibly poorly by these standards since technically there's only one
> brief close-up of Brosnan in the whole thing. A single high-impact
> shot of the lead actor at the end of a trailer in which he doesn't
> otherwise appear can be far more significant than twenty close-ups.
> Were EON hiding something with their famous build-up to the first
> close-up of Connery's in DN, or the similar approach taken to Lazenby
> at the beginning of OHMSS? On the contrary. By *not* showing much of
> their leading actor, they were increasing his mystique.
>
> I got those figures together precisely because I wanted to point out
> that there *isn't* any good reason to claim a direct relationship
> between EON's confidence in their leading man and the number of
> close-ups allocated to him. That's been my point from the start.
>
> The bottom line here is that there is no credible evidence whatsoever
> that Craig is being treated differently from any of his predecessors or
> that EON are 'hiding' anything about him.*

--- I agree on all counts on the basis you make them. Mine was on just
a separate speculative basis. It still would be interesting to see how
many Craig will end up gettting, at least the 8 in your reconfigured
count [multiplying the number of close-ups in the teasers by two and a
half times so that roughly they take into account the
difference in length] or 11, as in Brosnan's GE trailer, to earn the
same vote of confidence. If it's somewhere between 8 and 11, then by
whatever mathematical formula, subliminal or otherwise, I guess he can
be considered on safe ground. If he ends up getting less than 8, then
you've got to begin to wonder. On the other hand, if he gets more,
then you really know Barb has got the hots for him.

>
> Phil
>
> *Incidentally, what qualities of Craig's do you think EON might be
> hiding which could have been addressed in the space of a
> one-and-a-half-minute teaser?
>
> Perhaps he's got a vestigial tail or something...

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295637 ]

Di, 04 Juli 2006 17:56

Mac

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> So, in that spirit: Tiny Tim to Roger Moore in three moves or fewer!

LOL I don't think I've ever *seen* a movie with Tiny Tim in it! I'm sure
Moore has appeared on ROWAN AND MARTIN'S LAUGH IN. But that's
TV.

Where's a hippy when you need one?
--
-- Mac

Re: Since it's a slowish day - [message #295640 ]

Mi, 05 Juli 2006 01:08

phil.gerrard1

Mac wrote:

> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> > So, in that spirit: Tiny Tim to Roger Moore in three moves or fewer!
>
> LOL I don't think I've ever *seen* a movie with Tiny Tim in it! I'm sure
> Moore has appeared on ROWAN AND MARTIN'S LAUGH IN. But that's
> TV.

I've got no idea how to do this myself! I'd guess that some sprawling
all-star 1960s comedy like 'Skidoo', 'What's New, Pussycat?', 'Candy',
or CR '67 might provide the answer.

Best

Phil

PS To go back to an earlier thread, I'd been looking for this for ages,
and finally found it. *This* is the song we want in order to impress
upon an audience that CR is a love story to equal OHMSS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbgHYO2TgQc

Seiten (2): [1 2 > »]

Vorheriges Thema:	Connery Out of Retirement for INDY 4?
Nächstes Thema:	Most Prolific Poster Here?

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 09:05:58 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06890 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.