Wasn't dalton topless when diving aboard the seacrest?
Shame Pam wasn't
I guess you have not found the hidden Easter egg documentary on the new bond collection DVD set??
50 years of Bond Girls starkers
Hubba hubba!!
I'll dig out the box set and get to work smashing my meat n 2 veg furiously while I vent my angst and anger issues in a display of gratuitous 'personal abuse'.
Wasn't dalton topless when diving aboard the seacrest?
Shame Pam wasn't
I guess you have not found the hidden Easter egg documentary on the new bond collection DVD set??
50 years of Bond Girls starkers
Hubba hubba!!
I'll dig out the box set and get to work smashing my meat n 2 veg furiously while I vent my angst and anger issues in a display of gratuitous 'personal abuse'.
More information than I actually need. I may now need therapy.
I guess you have not found the hidden Easter egg documentary on the new bond collection DVD set??
50 years of Bond Girls starkers
Hubba hubba!!
I'll dig out the box set and get to work smashing my meat n 2 veg furiously while I vent my angst and anger issues in a display of gratuitous 'personal abuse'.
More information than I actually need. I may now need therapy.
I will give it a rest, seeing as all of my valid points about the reboot being little thought through, and now beginning to be reeled in slowly by Eon in favour of more traditional Bond elements being reintroduced (M’s old office, for example) have been unaddressed.
Here, though, are my “predictions” for how I think this reboot will all pan out.
1) The next two films will have Craig in.
2) The next two films will have introduced more traditional Bond elements.
3) Arnold will do the score for the next two films, and possibly thereafter.
4) After the next two films Craig will be replaced by a tall, slender dark-haired actor.
5) In the second film following Craig’s departure Quantum will be remodelled on SPECTRE, and some sort of “villain’s lair” (perhaps not as grandiose as in TSWLM) will be featured.
No-one is arguing here ... It's a discussion forum. Or has that escaped you in your blind hatred for all things new? It is amusing to see how you disregard any of the points raised by everyone else, all because they are trying to explain why the reboot had to happen & this doesn't fit in to your blinkered views.
Quoting posts from that website truly showed your colours. Who knows ... maybe your wish will come true & Sir Sean will make a comeback in a new outing for the franchise??!
Ya know I honestly dunno what to put, this thread has derailed into such a frustrating effort that I've actually started to laugh at it.
I loved that bit about me not knowing why the reboot happened ) I don't know for sure but sure as hell came up with more sensible reasons than my accuser.
Ens007, please tell me the points that have been raised in relation to my saying the reboot was not needed. All I recall is people saying it was because things were getting stale. That’s not really a reason for a reboot as opposed a makeover, which would accomplish the same thing. No one has yet addressed that point. A very important one in my view. If you can, do so.
You made reference to having made valid points ... I'm asking you what these are, as quoting an article from craigisnotbond certainly ain't backing you up.
I think it happened because the actors the producers had approached to play Bond before Craig said no, and as Craig was in reserve they had to choose him. And because he was so physically different to the other Bonds, they had to detract from this to some extent by using a reboot. This would achieve three aims: lesson the “shock” of having a blond Bond, allow the films to get away from the excesses of DAD, and to compete with the Bourne films.
My point, though, which no one has addressed, is that all of this could have been achieved without a reboot, but rather by having a makeover. The latter would have not caused continuity problems, either.
Not in my view. A makeover is what happened with GF: making it more escapist than FRWL, but leaving continuity and chronology in place. The reboot has done more than this, as we all know.
I think it happened because the actors the producers had approached to play Bond before Craig said no, and as Craig was in reserve they had to choose him. And because he was so physically different to the other Bonds, they had to detract from this to some extent by using a reboot. This would achieve three aims: lesson the “shock” of having a blond Bond, allow the films to get away from the excesses of DAD, and to compete with the Bourne films.
Ok, EoN don't make decisions on what the actors want or don't want to do. The actors get told to some degree what's gonna happen and seldom have a big impact on the way the film is made.
Sure they're the leading guy, but when it comes to the direction, plot and where the franchise is going, it's not up to the actor to dictate this.
Brosnan had agreed to do a 5th after DAD came out. The producers then decided that things needed to be started afresh, going back to CR and for that they needed a new actor.
Daniel Craig was never 'backup bond'. Daniel was on the books and up for consideration along side many other actors, this is the usual way a new bond is picked. There isn't a queue of actors lined up, more like a pool for Babs and Mike to go fishing in.
I think it happened because the actors the producers had approached to play Bond before Craig said no, and as Craig was in reserve they had to choose him. And because he was so physically different to the other Bonds, they had to detract from this to some extent by using a reboot. This would achieve three aims: lesson the “shock” of having a blond Bond, allow the films to get away from the excesses of DAD, and to compete with the Bourne films.
Ok, EoN don't make decisions on what the actors want or don't want to do. The actors get told to some degree what's gonna happen and seldom have a big impact on the way the film is made.
Sure they're the leading guy, but when it comes to the direction, plot and where the franchise is going, it's not up to the actor to dictate this.
Brosnan had agreed to do a 5th after DAD came out. The producers then decided that things needed to be started afresh, going back to CR and for that they needed a new actor.
Daniel Craig was never 'backup bond'. Daniel was on the books and up for consideration along side many other actors, this is the usual way a new bond is picked. There isn't a queue of actors lined up, more like a pool for Babs and Mike to go fishing in.
Ok, EoN don't make decisions on what the actors want or don't want to do. The actors get told to some degree what's gonna happen and seldom have a big impact on the way the film is made.
I agree.
Sure they're the leading guy, but when it comes to the direction, plot and where the franchise is going, it's not up to the actor to dictate this.
I agree.
Brosnan had agreed to do a 5th after DAD came out. The producers then decided that things needed to be started afresh, going back to CR and for that they needed a new” actor.
I read that Brosnan was set to continue as Bond, but contract negations fell through, probably because he wanted more money.
Daniel Craig was never 'backup bond'. Daniel was on the books and up for consideration along side many other actors, this is the usual way a new bond is picked. There isn't a queue of actors lined up, more like a pool for Babs and Mike to go fishing in.
True, Babs wanted him all along, but Michael wanted to approach others first. So when the others said no, Bab’s first choice was used. My guess is that had Craig not been used, the need for a reboot to account for him would not have been there.
To my knowledge, Barbara favoured DC, it wasn't a case of the others saying no and DC being the second choice, Barbara wanted DC and DC she got.
A new actor was used because of the reboot happening, it wasn't a case of the reboot happened because Pierce wanted more money, which by the way, have you got any proof to back up the 'brosnan wanted more money' argument?
If the reboot never happened, then the Films would have gotten even more sillier then DAD. I can imagine what the next Brosnan Film would of involved - Bond going back in time to the Jurassic Period to find and battle the great T-rexoraus who has enslaved all of the other Dinos.
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
If the reboot never happened, then the Films would have gotten even more sillier then DAD. I can imagine what the next Brosnan Film would of involved - Bond going back in time to the Jurassic Period to find and battle the great T-rexoraus who has enslaved all of the other Dinos.
I disagree. The opposite was almost certainly going to happen, with or without Pierce Brosnan. Die Another Day was in the same outlandish mould as You Only Live Twice and Moonraker. Those films were followed by one's that were much more realistic, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and For Your Eyes Only. History has shown that the producers push the boat out to a certain point before pulling it back in.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
Comments
I guess you have not found the hidden Easter egg documentary on the new bond collection DVD set??
50 years of Bond Girls starkers
Hubba hubba!!
I'll dig out the box set and get to work smashing my meat n 2 veg furiously while I vent my angst and anger issues in a display of gratuitous 'personal abuse'.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
More information than I actually need. I may now need therapy.
So do my Crown Jewels
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I haven’t a clue. Neither have you, I suspect.
Well the fact that MG mentioned taking it in a new, fresher direction would give a clue as to why he thinks the reboot took place doesn't it??! ?:)
Stop being such a WUM, as it's becoming too obvious now.
"The Bond 'Reboot': Has the EON Bond Team finally lost their marbles?"
http://danielcraigisnotbond.com/haseonlosttheirmrables.html
I will give it a rest, seeing as all of my valid points about the reboot being little thought through, and now beginning to be reeled in slowly by Eon in favour of more traditional Bond elements being reintroduced (M’s old office, for example) have been unaddressed.
Here, though, are my “predictions” for how I think this reboot will all pan out.
1) The next two films will have Craig in.
2) The next two films will have introduced more traditional Bond elements.
3) Arnold will do the score for the next two films, and possibly thereafter.
4) After the next two films Craig will be replaced by a tall, slender dark-haired actor.
5) In the second film following Craig’s departure Quantum will be remodelled on SPECTRE, and some sort of “villain’s lair” (perhaps not as grandiose as in TSWLM) will be featured.
I will now leave you to argue amongst yourselves.
No-one is arguing here ... It's a discussion forum. Or has that escaped you in your blind hatred for all things new? It is amusing to see how you disregard any of the points raised by everyone else, all because they are trying to explain why the reboot had to happen & this doesn't fit in to your blinkered views.
Quoting posts from that website truly showed your colours. Who knows ... maybe your wish will come true & Sir Sean will make a comeback in a new outing for the franchise??!
Ya know I honestly dunno what to put, this thread has derailed into such a frustrating effort that I've actually started to laugh at it.
I loved that bit about me not knowing why the reboot happened
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
My points are legion throughout this thread. Please refer back to them.
You some kinda robot that will only accept the answer it wishes to hear?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Go back and read the previous posts, take your time, get a grown up to help with the big words, and then pack it in with the 'why why why' tactics.
Why do you think the reboot happened?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
My point, though, which no one has addressed, is that all of this could have been achieved without a reboot, but rather by having a makeover. The latter would have not caused continuity problems, either.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Ok, EoN don't make decisions on what the actors want or don't want to do. The actors get told to some degree what's gonna happen and seldom have a big impact on the way the film is made.
Sure they're the leading guy, but when it comes to the direction, plot and where the franchise is going, it's not up to the actor to dictate this.
Brosnan had agreed to do a 5th after DAD came out. The producers then decided that things needed to be started afresh, going back to CR and for that they needed a new actor.
Daniel Craig was never 'backup bond'. Daniel was on the books and up for consideration along side many other actors, this is the usual way a new bond is picked. There isn't a queue of actors lined up, more like a pool for Babs and Mike to go fishing in.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Yeah it's a bit like when DAD came out.... Gets annoying don't it?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I agree.
I agree.
I read that Brosnan was set to continue as Bond, but contract negations fell through, probably because he wanted more money.
True, Babs wanted him all along, but Michael wanted to approach others first. So when the others said no, Bab’s first choice was used. My guess is that had Craig not been used, the need for a reboot to account for him would not have been there.
A new actor was used because of the reboot happening, it wasn't a case of the reboot happened because Pierce wanted more money, which by the way, have you got any proof to back up the 'brosnan wanted more money' argument?
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
I disagree. The opposite was almost certainly going to happen, with or without Pierce Brosnan. Die Another Day was in the same outlandish mould as You Only Live Twice and Moonraker. Those films were followed by one's that were much more realistic, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and For Your Eyes Only. History has shown that the producers push the boat out to a certain point before pulling it back in.
No, I haven’t. But why else do such contract negotiations fail?
I think if you watch Everything or Nothing Brosnan reveals they cut him out and wanted a change of direction, had nothing to do with money.