I honestly think that the 50th anniversary did have an affect.
I should imagine that actual Bond fans, like us, comprised only about 40% of the world box office takings for SF. Let’s say that of that 40% half saw it again, that comes to 20% of repeat viewings. This, when measured against the 60% of non-Bond fans (or passing trade, to be more accurate) who saw it just once, is a small amount.
When I saw SF, after it finished, the conversations I heard from people leaving the cinema were about where to go for a meal or a drink, not about whether the reboot had been successful or not, which goes to show that most people who saw SF were not Bond fans.
Where on earth are you deriving these figures from??!
When I left the cinema I was more concerned about getting to my car & not getting piss wet through, rather than discussing successes of reboots or the merits of the reboot series. Does this mean that I'm not a true fan too??
I'll leave you to it, as there's clearly an agenda going on here.
When I saw SF, after it finished, the conversations I heard from people leaving the cinema were about where to go for a meal or a drink, not about whether the reboot had been successful or not, which goes to show that most people who saw SF were not Bond fans.
) weird that, cos that's what happened when I first saw it, the majority of the group was made up of an AJB moderator, a guy with definitive knowledge of bond firearms, a guy who used to work for EoN and myself who has worked on a bond film and produced stuff for FE. And we'd all travelled into London to see the cast and crew showing a week before the film was released, thanks to an extremely kind and generous offer.
I guess that makes your theory utter bollocks or us lot not 'true fans'.
And I'm loving the imaginative accountancy, you should go on dragons den.
It wouldn't matter to some people even if DC was the perfect figure for Bond (whatever that is), he's blonde remember and we all know blonde people can't act 8-)
I can see this sliding into yet another angle at which to dig DC from.
Where on earth are you deriving these figures from??!
When I left the cinema I was more concerned about getting to my car & not getting piss wet through, rather than discussing successes of reboots or the merits of the reboot series. Does this mean that I'm not a true fan too??
I'll leave you to it, as there's clearly an agenda going on here.
The figures are just assumptions, based on the likelihood that only a small percentage of the world’s cinema going public are Bond fans, which seems a fair assumption to me. Do you think Bond fans comprise the majority?
Yes, getting home from a cinema is one of those must dos—nothing against that at all. But my point was that the audience I saw SF with hadn’t gone to see it because they were Bond fans, but because likely they had been swayed by the 50th anniversary campaign—nothing wrong with that either. But the point was also made in response to your assumption that the majority of people who saw SF were repeat viewers of it. Something I can accept in the case of Bond fans, but less likely for those simply swayed by the 50th anniversary campaign.
If I have an agenda, it is responding to comments made by people in forum threads.
This thread is surely borderlining on hilarious status
Craigs trilogy of Bond films has taken $2 billion at the box office worldwide however......
1) The reboot was a mistake EON regrets (see above gross $)
2) QOS a flop (500 million odd bucks)
3) Skyfall (success is only down to Connery / classic Bond elements)
Either somebody hates Daniel Craig or is it April Fools??
When I saw SF, after it finished, the conversations I heard from people leaving the cinema were about where to go for a meal or a drink, not about whether the reboot had been successful or not, which goes to show that most people who saw SF were not Bond fans.
) weird that, cos that's what happened when I first saw it, the majority of the group was made up of an AJB moderator, a guy with definitive knowledge of bond firearms, a guy who used to work for EoN and myself who has worked on a bond film and produced stuff for FE. And we'd all travelled into London to see the cast and crew showing a week before the film was released, thanks to an extremely kind and generous offer.
I guess that makes your theory utter bollocks or us lot not 'true fans'.
And I'm loving the imaginative accountancy, you should go on dragons den.
I can’t explain the lack of enthusiasm for the film amongst the group you mention. I would have hoped that some discussion of it would have followed its viewing by such a crowd. Maybe they were stunned into silence because they were disappointed with it, but too polite to voice their misgivings, it being a Bond “get together” so to speak, and diplomacy, no doubt, in full swing.
I think the reboot is fully justifed and the fans keep flocking to see DC because simply he is a refreshing James Bond after years of cheese. He is also the coolest Bond since Connery (checkout the clothing section etc for ref, everybodys buyng his clothes which he generally handpicks himself for films)
I would say the success of recent Bond is down to EON rebooting the series, better scripts and casting Daniel Craig (lets face it if the Bond is crap then nobody will view it)
This thread is surely borderlining on hilarious status
Craigs trilogy of Bond films has taken $2 billion at the box office worldwide however......
1) The reboot was a mistake EON regrets (see above gross $)
2) QOS a flop (500 million odd bucks)
3) Skyfall (success is only down to Connery / classic Bond elements)
Either somebody hates Daniel Craig or is it April Fools??
To answer your points:
1) Eon has backtracked on the reboot in limited ways in SF, as I mentioned earlier. The director of the film has mentioned how he wanted to go back to the original vision of Bond.
2) Maybe not a box office flop but as I said earlier quality is not measured by box office takings. You seem obsessed with using the financial success of a film to shore up your arguments about quality.
3) See No 1.
When I saw SF, after it finished, the conversations I heard from people leaving the cinema were about where to go for a meal or a drink, not about whether the reboot had been successful or not, which goes to show that most people who saw SF were not Bond fans.
) weird that, cos that's what happened when I first saw it, the majority of the group was made up of an AJB moderator, a guy with definitive knowledge of bond firearms, a guy who used to work for EoN and myself who has worked on a bond film and produced stuff for FE. And we'd all travelled into London to see the cast and crew showing a week before the film was released, thanks to an extremely kind and generous offer.
I guess that makes your theory utter bollocks or us lot not 'true fans'.
And I'm loving the imaginative accountancy, you should go on dragons den.
I can’t explain the lack of enthusiasm for the film amongst the group you mention. I would have hoped that some discussion of it would have followed its viewing by such a crowd. Maybe they were stunned into silence because they were disappointed with it, but too polite to voice their misgivings, it being a Bond “get together” so to speak, and diplomacy, no doubt, in full swing.
I think you've missed the point that MG was making tbh. I stand to be corrected, but I don't think that they were disappointed by SF. But it's probably best if he explains further.
This thread is surely borderlining on hilarious status
Craigs trilogy of Bond films has taken $2 billion at the box office worldwide however......
1) The reboot was a mistake EON regrets (see above gross $)
2) QOS a flop (500 million odd bucks)
3) Skyfall (success is only down to Connery / classic Bond elements)
Either somebody hates Daniel Craig or is it April Fools??
To answer your points:
1) Eon has backtracked on the reboot in limited ways in SF, as I mentioned earlier. The director of the film has mentioned how he wanted to go back to the original vision of Bond.
2) Maybe not a box office flop but as I said earlier quality is not measured by box office takings. You seem obsessed with using the financial success of a film to shore up your arguments about quality.
3) See No 1.
How has EON backtracked on the reboot???????????? Not sure where you get this from
Nope you said it was a flop, how is it a flop if it had mixed reviews and high takings??
I think you've missed the point that MG was making tbh. I stand to be corrected, but I don't think that they were disappointed by SF. But it's probably best if he explains further.
When I saw SF, after it finished, the conversations I heard from people leaving the cinema were about where to go for a meal or a drink, not about whether the reboot had been successful or not, which goes to show that most people who saw SF were not Bond fans.
) weird that, cos that's what happened when I first saw it, the majority of the group was made up of an AJB moderator, a guy with definitive knowledge of bond firearms, a guy who used to work for EoN and myself who has worked on a bond film and produced stuff for FE. And we'd all travelled into London to see the cast and crew showing a week before the film was released, thanks to an extremely kind and generous offer.
I guess that makes your theory utter bollocks or us lot not 'true fans'.
And I'm loving the imaginative accountancy, you should go on dragons den.
I can’t explain the lack of enthusiasm for the film amongst the group you mention. I would have hoped that some discussion of it would have followed its viewing by such a crowd. Maybe they were stunned into silence because they were disappointed with it, but too polite to voice their misgivings, it being a Bond “get together” so to speak, and diplomacy, no doubt, in full swing.
You really dunno when to stop spouting crap do you?
You declared emphatically that the reboot wasn't needed, even though I and others have explained in great detail why the reboot happened.
Then you continue to push the 'connery is great' idea.
Then you decide to become Melvyn King and balance the books for EoN with some rather imaginative and assuming accountancy skills.
And finally you decide that no, your theory of people discussing where to eat must mean said persons aren't fans of bond and that although you wasn't there or know my companions, you in fact know what they thought of the film.
What's next then Mr Troll, another DAD bashing thread?
It's pretty obvious you're either here to wind people up, waste AJB's bandwidth or you've got some kinda underlying condition, or possibly a mix of all 3.
In which case ill just walk away as I really can't be arsed trying to talk some sense to someone who's unable or unwilling to converse sensibly.
Ps, after seeing skyfall the general conscientious was that it was a bloody bond film and the best of the DC era.
Again, financial arguments are beside the point in a discussion about quality and Bond tradition.
You said EON made a mistake - I doubt they think they have due to $$$ over three films.
I agree box office $$ does not mean quality however the critics loved Casino Royale and Skyfall hence if the critics are raving about the films and the money is rolling in then they are obviously doing things right
This thread is surely borderlining on hilarious status
Craigs trilogy of Bond films has taken $2 billion at the box office worldwide however......
1) The reboot was a mistake EON regrets (see above gross $)
2) QOS a flop (500 million odd bucks)
3) Skyfall (success is only down to Connery / classic Bond elements)
Either somebody hates Daniel Craig or is it April Fools??
To answer your points:
1) Eon has backtracked on the reboot in limited ways in SF, as I mentioned earlier. The director of the film has mentioned how he wanted to go back to the original vision of Bond.
2) Maybe not a box office flop but as I said earlier quality is not measured by box office takings. You seem obsessed with using the financial success of a film to shore up your arguments about quality.
3) See No 1.
How has EON backtracked on the reboot???????????? Not sure where you get this from
Nope you said it was a flop, how is it a flop if it had mixed reviews and high takings??
Tbh I think that there's no chance of a rational conversation here with Osris, as there's an anti-reboot / DC agenda in play. No matter how many answers are given, there's no getting through the bias.
How has EON backtracked on the reboot???????????? Not sure where you get this from
Nope you said it was a flop, how is it a flop if it had mixed reviews and high takings??
If you read all my posts in this thread carefully you will see why I say Eon have backtracked
Where have I said QOS was a flop? I only said it didn’t have the Bond elements that CR and SF has, and because of that wasn’t as good, in my view. I’m quite prepared to accept it took money at the box office, as that seems to be something you are obsessed with.
Tbh I think that there's no chance of a rational conversation here with Osris, as there's an anti-reboot / DC agenda in play. No matter how many answers are given, there's no getting through the bias.
I don’t mind debate, but when it descends to personal abuse as is the case with minigeff's comments, I do take exception.
You said EON made a mistake - I doubt they think they have due to $$$ over three films.
I meant an artistic mistake. Whether a film is financially successful or not matters little to me, as a viewer.
Why is it an artistic mistake? Casino Royale is in most peoples top 3?
Dude if you hate DC as Bond just say it, I dont mind at all, after all we all have our faves etc but to make up things saying EON realise their mistake etc is just false
Tbh I think that there's no chance of a rational conversation here with Osris, as there's an anti-reboot / DC agenda in play. No matter how many answers are given, there's no getting through the bias.
I don’t mind debate, but when it descends to personal abuse as is the case with minigeff's comments, I do take exception.
Me personally abusing you? You wish, ducky.
I think things have come to my previously predicted outcome.
Shame, but I really can't see this thread going anywhere.
) weird that, cos that's what happened when I first saw it, the majority of the group was made up of an AJB moderator, a guy with definitive knowledge of bond firearms, a guy who used to work for EoN and myself who has worked on a bond film and produced stuff for FE. And we'd all travelled into London to see the cast and crew showing a week before the film was released, thanks to an extremely kind and generous offer.
I guess that makes your theory utter bollocks or us lot not 'true fans'.
And I'm loving the imaginative accountancy, you should go on dragons den.
I can’t explain the lack of enthusiasm for the film amongst the group you mention. I would have hoped that some discussion of it would have followed its viewing by such a crowd. Maybe they were stunned into silence because they were disappointed with it, but too polite to voice their misgivings, it being a Bond “get together” so to speak, and diplomacy, no doubt, in full swing.
You really dunno when to stop spouting crap do you?
You declared emphatically that the reboot wasn't needed, even though I and others have explained in great detail why the reboot happened.
Then you continue to push the 'connery is great' idea.
Then you decide to become Melvyn King and balance the books for EoN with some rather imaginative and assuming accountancy skills.
And finally you decide that no, your theory of people discussing where to eat must mean said persons aren't fans of bond and that although you wasn't there or know my companions, you in fact know what they thought of the film.
What's next then Mr Troll, another DAD bashing thread?
It's pretty obvious you're either here to wind people up, waste AJB's bandwidth or you've got some kinda underlying condition, or possibly a mix of all 3.
In which case ill just walk away as I really can't be arsed trying to talk some sense to someone who's unable or unwilling to converse sensibly.
Ps, after seeing skyfall the general conscientious was that it was a bloody bond film and the best of the DC era.
You really dunno when to stop spouting crap do you?
You declared emphatically that the reboot wasn't needed, even though I and others have explained in great detail why the reboot happened.
You have explained why you think the reboot happened, not why it did. There is a difference.
Then you continue to push the 'connery is great' idea.
What’s wrong with that? You do the same with Craig.
Then you decide to become Melvyn King and balance the books for EoN with some rather imaginative and assuming accountancy skills.
That’s been explained in an earlier comment.
And finally you decide that no, your theory of people discussing where to eat must mean said persons aren't fans of bond and that although you wasn't there or know my companions, you in fact know what they thought of the film.
No, it is an expression of surprise that no one wants to talk about a film two seconds after they saw it. To me this is unusual, but then I like to talk about films.
What's next then Mr Troll, another DAD bashing thread?
I’ve not bashed DAD. I’ve agreed with you on several occasions that it was, perhaps, a cause for the reboot, and that it was not a good film, but I don’t recall “bashing” it.
It's pretty obvious you're either here to wind people up, waste AJB's bandwidth or you've got some kinda underlying condition, or possibly a mix of all 3.
I think most people reading this thread will see that I’ve tried to discuss the matter rationally. Yes, I have a firm point of view but I have not wound anyone up, apart from you it seems. But I sense you are highly strung, anyway, and have anger issues.
Why is it an artistic mistake? Casino Royale is in most peoples top 3?
Dude if you hate DC as Bond just say it, I dont mind at all, after all we all have our faves etc but to make up things saying EON realise their mistake etc is just false
I can’t explain the lack of enthusiasm for the film amongst the group you mention. I would have hoped that some discussion of it would have followed its viewing by such a crowd. Maybe they were stunned into silence because they were disappointed with it, but too polite to voice their misgivings, it being a Bond “get together” so to speak, and diplomacy, no doubt, in full swing.
You really dunno when to stop spouting crap do you?
You declared emphatically that the reboot wasn't needed, even though I and others have explained in great detail why the reboot happened.
Then you continue to push the 'connery is great' idea.
Then you decide to become Melvyn King and balance the books for EoN with some rather imaginative and assuming accountancy skills.
And finally you decide that no, your theory of people discussing where to eat must mean said persons aren't fans of bond and that although you wasn't there or know my companions, you in fact know what they thought of the film.
What's next then Mr Troll, another DAD bashing thread?
It's pretty obvious you're either here to wind people up, waste AJB's bandwidth or you've got some kinda underlying condition, or possibly a mix of all 3.
In which case ill just walk away as I really can't be arsed trying to talk some sense to someone who's unable or unwilling to converse sensibly.
Ps, after seeing skyfall the general conscientious was that it was a bloody bond film and the best of the DC era.
You really dunno when to stop spouting crap do you?
You declared emphatically that the reboot wasn't needed, even though I and others have explained in great detail why the reboot happened.
You have explained why you think the reboot happened, not why it did. There is a difference.
Then you continue to push the 'connery is great' idea.
What’s wrong with that? You do the same with Craig.
Then you decide to become Melvyn King and balance the books for EoN with some rather imaginative and assuming accountancy skills.
That’s been explained in an earlier comment.
And finally you decide that no, your theory of people discussing where to eat must mean said persons aren't fans of bond and that although you wasn't there or know my companions, you in fact know what they thought of the film.
No, it is an expression of surprise that no one wants to talk about a film two seconds after they saw it. To me this is unusual, but then I like to talk about films.
What's next then Mr Troll, another DAD bashing thread?
I’ve not bashed DAD. I’ve agreed with you on several occasions that it was, perhaps, a cause for the reboot, and that it was not a good film, but I don’t recall “bashing” it.
It's pretty obvious you're either here to wind people up, waste AJB's bandwidth or you've got some kinda underlying condition, or possibly a mix of all 3.
I think most people reading this thread will see that I’ve tried to discuss the matter rationally. Yes, I have a firm point of view but I have not wound anyone up, apart from you it seems. But I sense you are highly strung, anyway, and have anger issues.
Pertinent issue to the discussion at hand, certainly.
Ah but it's not a discussion is it? You've got several people trying to explain why things have happened, who have spent their time to calmly explain to you things and you continually choose to spout more and more crap like some petulant kid tugging at the shirt going "why" repeatedly.
Here's a question for you then mr clever, if EoN didn't reboot the franchise in order to take it in a fresh new direction, why did they?
Definitely Moore and Brosnan. Connery was a competitive bodybuilder before he became Bond. Lazenby wasn't the bulkiest but he was certainly built like an athlete. I think both Dalton and Craig put on muscle for the role. Brosnan and Moore were thin in their first films before becoming gradually older and softer.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a better understanding of ourselves.” - Carl Jung
Definitely Moore and Brosnan. Connery was a competitive bodybuilder before he became Bond. Lazenby wasn't the bulkiest but he was certainly built like an athlete. I think both Dalton and Craig put on muscle for the role. Brosnan and Moore were thin in their first films before becoming gradually older and softer.
I can't say I remember Daltons physique shirtless lol. Lazenby was def athletic, the PTS proves this when he is in the sea and his shirt is wet.
For the record DC (obviously the most muscular) was def pumped up for his CR sequences. I don't think he was as big as many people suggest or think, a case of the old trick of doing weights, press ups etc on set before the take like good old Stallone and Arnie do.
I.e. I wished I always looked like I do 20 mins after my gym session
Comments
I should imagine that actual Bond fans, like us, comprised only about 40% of the world box office takings for SF. Let’s say that of that 40% half saw it again, that comes to 20% of repeat viewings. This, when measured against the 60% of non-Bond fans (or passing trade, to be more accurate) who saw it just once, is a small amount.
When I saw SF, after it finished, the conversations I heard from people leaving the cinema were about where to go for a meal or a drink, not about whether the reboot had been successful or not, which goes to show that most people who saw SF were not Bond fans.
When I left the cinema I was more concerned about getting to my car & not getting piss wet through, rather than discussing successes of reboots or the merits of the reboot series. Does this mean that I'm not a true fan too??
I'll leave you to it, as there's clearly an agenda going on here.
I guess that makes your theory utter bollocks or us lot not 'true fans'.
And I'm loving the imaginative accountancy, you should go on dragons den.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
You were right
The figures are just assumptions, based on the likelihood that only a small percentage of the world’s cinema going public are Bond fans, which seems a fair assumption to me. Do you think Bond fans comprise the majority?
Yes, getting home from a cinema is one of those must dos—nothing against that at all. But my point was that the audience I saw SF with hadn’t gone to see it because they were Bond fans, but because likely they had been swayed by the 50th anniversary campaign—nothing wrong with that either. But the point was also made in response to your assumption that the majority of people who saw SF were repeat viewers of it. Something I can accept in the case of Bond fans, but less likely for those simply swayed by the 50th anniversary campaign.
If I have an agenda, it is responding to comments made by people in forum threads.
Craigs trilogy of Bond films has taken $2 billion at the box office worldwide however......
1) The reboot was a mistake EON regrets (see above gross $)
2) QOS a flop (500 million odd bucks)
3) Skyfall (success is only down to Connery / classic Bond elements)
Either somebody hates Daniel Craig or is it April Fools??
I can’t explain the lack of enthusiasm for the film amongst the group you mention. I would have hoped that some discussion of it would have followed its viewing by such a crowd. Maybe they were stunned into silence because they were disappointed with it, but too polite to voice their misgivings, it being a Bond “get together” so to speak, and diplomacy, no doubt, in full swing.
I think the reboot is fully justifed and the fans keep flocking to see DC because simply he is a refreshing James Bond after years of cheese. He is also the coolest Bond since Connery (checkout the clothing section etc for ref, everybodys buyng his clothes which he generally handpicks himself for films)
I would say the success of recent Bond is down to EON rebooting the series, better scripts and casting Daniel Craig (lets face it if the Bond is crap then nobody will view it)
To answer your points:
1) Eon has backtracked on the reboot in limited ways in SF, as I mentioned earlier. The director of the film has mentioned how he wanted to go back to the original vision of Bond.
2) Maybe not a box office flop but as I said earlier quality is not measured by box office takings. You seem obsessed with using the financial success of a film to shore up your arguments about quality.
3) See No 1.
I think you've missed the point that MG was making tbh. I stand to be corrected, but I don't think that they were disappointed by SF. But it's probably best if he explains further.
How has EON backtracked on the reboot???????????? Not sure where you get this from
Nope you said it was a flop, how is it a flop if it had mixed reviews and high takings??
Again, financial arguments are beside the point in a discussion about quality and Bond tradition.
I was being ironic.
You really dunno when to stop spouting crap do you?
You declared emphatically that the reboot wasn't needed, even though I and others have explained in great detail why the reboot happened.
Then you continue to push the 'connery is great' idea.
Then you decide to become Melvyn King and balance the books for EoN with some rather imaginative and assuming accountancy skills.
And finally you decide that no, your theory of people discussing where to eat must mean said persons aren't fans of bond and that although you wasn't there or know my companions, you in fact know what they thought of the film.
What's next then Mr Troll, another DAD bashing thread?
It's pretty obvious you're either here to wind people up, waste AJB's bandwidth or you've got some kinda underlying condition, or possibly a mix of all 3.
In which case ill just walk away as I really can't be arsed trying to talk some sense to someone who's unable or unwilling to converse sensibly.
Ps, after seeing skyfall the general conscientious was that it was a bloody bond film and the best of the DC era.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
You said EON made a mistake - I doubt they think they have due to $$$ over three films.
I agree box office $$ does not mean quality however the critics loved Casino Royale and Skyfall hence if the critics are raving about the films and the money is rolling in then they are obviously doing things right
Tbh I think that there's no chance of a rational conversation here with Osris, as there's an anti-reboot / DC agenda in play. No matter how many answers are given, there's no getting through the bias.
If you read all my posts in this thread carefully you will see why I say Eon have backtracked
Where have I said QOS was a flop? I only said it didn’t have the Bond elements that CR and SF has, and because of that wasn’t as good, in my view. I’m quite prepared to accept it took money at the box office, as that seems to be something you are obsessed with.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I meant an artistic mistake. Whether a film is financially successful or not matters little to me, as a viewer.
I don’t mind debate, but when it descends to personal abuse as is the case with minigeff's comments, I do take exception.
Why is it an artistic mistake? Casino Royale is in most peoples top 3?
Dude if you hate DC as Bond just say it, I dont mind at all, after all we all have our faves etc but to make up things saying EON realise their mistake etc is just false
Me personally abusing you? You wish, ducky.
I think things have come to my previously predicted outcome.
Shame, but I really can't see this thread going anywhere.
Toodles,
MG -{
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
You have explained why you think the reboot happened, not why it did. There is a difference.
What’s wrong with that? You do the same with Craig.
That’s been explained in an earlier comment.
No, it is an expression of surprise that no one wants to talk about a film two seconds after they saw it. To me this is unusual, but then I like to talk about films.
I’ve not bashed DAD. I’ve agreed with you on several occasions that it was, perhaps, a cause for the reboot, and that it was not a good film, but I don’t recall “bashing” it.
I think most people reading this thread will see that I’ve tried to discuss the matter rationally. Yes, I have a firm point of view but I have not wound anyone up, apart from you it seems. But I sense you are highly strung, anyway, and have anger issues.
It’s an artistic mistake to me, that’s all.
I don’t hate DC, only the reboot.
Lmao
I think you have more issues than I
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Pertinent issue to the discussion at hand, certainly.
Ah but it's not a discussion is it? You've got several people trying to explain why things have happened, who have spent their time to calmly explain to you things and you continually choose to spout more and more crap like some petulant kid tugging at the shirt going "why" repeatedly.
Here's a question for you then mr clever, if EoN didn't reboot the franchise in order to take it in a fresh new direction, why did they?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I can't say I remember Daltons physique shirtless lol. Lazenby was def athletic, the PTS proves this when he is in the sea and his shirt is wet.
For the record DC (obviously the most muscular) was def pumped up for his CR sequences. I don't think he was as big as many people suggest or think, a case of the old trick of doing weights, press ups etc on set before the take like good old Stallone and Arnie do.
I.e. I wished I always looked like I do 20 mins after my gym session
Shame Pam wasn't
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org