Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » James Bond collection $125 on Amazon today (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: James Bond collection $125 on Amazon today
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 03-15-2007 03:44 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Christopher Lee is actually related to Ian Flemming, a cousin. What Lee says could be true. Nevertheless, Goldeneye was still the only Brosnan-era Bond movie worth recommendation.

I've read various accounts over which actor Flemming supposedly originally wanted cast in the Bond part. David Niven and Roger Moore have been mentioned. In retrospect it's all pretty meaningless. I couldn't imagine someone else playing Bond in Goldfinger other than Sean Connery.

There's other weird examples for other movies. Frank Sinatra was originally cast in the part of Dirty Harry Callahan, but backed out of the project. Enter Clint Eastwood.

Tom Selleck was originally considered for the Indiana Jones role, but couldn't get out of his Magnum P.I. contract with CBS. Enter Harrison Ford.

And in another piece of meaningless trivia, Ian Flemming's birthday is the same as mine: May 28.
[Razz]

 |  IP: Logged
Joseph L. Kleiman
Master Film Handler

Posts: 380
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Apr 2005

- posted 03-15-2007 04:25 PM      Profile for Joseph L. Kleiman   Email Joseph L. Kleiman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Timothy Dalton was originally offered the Bond Role in 1968 for On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but turned it down thinking he was too young. Instead, we got George.

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

- posted 03-15-2007 04:27 PM      Profile for Mike Schindler   Email Mike Schindler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Bobby, I agree with you from a few posts back that they should start remaking Fleming's books for this new continuity. They should just go in order, straight down the list. That would make LIVE AND LET DIE next.

I'm quite fond of Brosnan's movies, and I actually think GOLDENEYE is the least good (not to say that it's bad). I've always thought of TOMORROW NEVER DIES as the quintessential Bond movie. It contains all of the elements that the films are known for, and unlike many of the films, they all work. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH presented Bond in a fairly hardcore light, which I appreciated. And DIE ANOTHER DAY was a throwback to the big epic romps of the Roger Moore era. But unlike those movies, it was watchable. That movie addressed a concern felt by many that the franchise was stale and getting its ass kicked by every other contemporary action movie. It really amped up the production value to something that resembled a 21st century movie.

In fact, I liked DIE ANOTHER DAY so much that I'm showing it next month to my Tuesday Night Movie Club, which meets every Monday Night.

But all that being said, CASINO ROYALE crushes all of those movies like they were ants.

 |  IP: Logged
John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 03-15-2007 04:56 PM      Profile for John Wilson   Email John Wilson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mike Schindler
DIE ANOTHER DAY was a throwback to the big epic romps of the Roger Moore era. But unlike those movies, it was watchable.
Does that mean you've never watched 'The Spy Who Loved Me'? [Eek!]

It's all a matter of opinion I know, but how you can say Die Another Day is watchable and SPY or For Your Eyes Only were not is incredible.

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

- posted 03-15-2007 06:47 PM      Profile for Mike Schindler   Email Mike Schindler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't like THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, but it's not like it's MOONRAKER. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY is actually good, but keep in mind that that's the one where they were like, "Oh. Maybe this fantastical epic stuff isn't working. Maybe sending James Bond to space was a bad idea."

As for why neither of those movies are as good as DIE ANOTHER DAY, two words: Roger Moore.

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Heenan
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1896
From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

- posted 03-15-2007 07:41 PM      Profile for Mike Heenan   Email Mike Heenan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
When I think what Burt Reynolds could have done for the series.... sigh. [Big Grin] Octopussy is one of my favorites because of the stunts at the end where the 2 guys are outside of the plane trying to kill each other. Man those guys had balls in those days... it'd all be CGI today. And the fact it takes place in India was pretty cool.

 |  IP: Logged
Frank Dubrois
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 896
From: Cleveland, OH
Registered: Mar 2005

- posted 03-15-2007 11:21 PM      Profile for Frank Dubrois     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mike Schindler
I've always thought of TOMORROW NEVER DIES as the quintessential Bond movie.
SAY WHAT? That was such a lame movie. Bond vs Ted Turner.

Out of all the toys or gimmcks we could have seen in Casino Royale, a computer networked defibrillator is all we get? Cmon man. I dont have a problem with the actor or the car. Even the Bond women were good..the villian left a little to be desired, the story was OK, but the gadgets man...its all about the gadgets. I don't care if the movie closely follows the books, as most books don't directly translate well, but they have a formula, it works, why change it? All they have to do is look at what Coke did. Coke was good...but they changed the formula. Some will like it some will not. I do not. In BOTH cases. They can change the Bonds, and I'm OK with it...but they cant change the essence of the movie. I almost fell off my chair when M threatened to have Bond killed. Cmon...that and reference to 9/11 all while they were telling us that this was "in the beginning" when Bond first became a 00. That part really screws up the timeline for me. It simply doesnt make sense.

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Heenan
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1896
From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

- posted 03-15-2007 11:55 PM      Profile for Mike Heenan   Email Mike Heenan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It would have been cool if they really started over and have it take place in the 60s.

 |  IP: Logged
Frank Dubrois
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 896
From: Cleveland, OH
Registered: Mar 2005

- posted 03-16-2007 12:05 AM      Profile for Frank Dubrois     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
that would be interesting, however, probably a little to expensive considering all the locations. Possibly CGI could help that out a little, who knows. I do like "Bond during the cold war" era. It always made for good stories.

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

- posted 03-16-2007 03:43 AM      Profile for Mike Schindler   Email Mike Schindler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Frank Dubrois
Cmon...that and reference to 9/11 all while they were telling us that this was "in the beginning" when Bond first became a 00. That part really screws up the timeline for me. It simply doesnt make sense.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the idea is that CASINO ROYALE is relaunching the franchise. This isn't supposed to be a flashback. It's an entirely new continuity. Storywise, they are completely disregarding what has come before.

As for setting it in the 60's, that's what Quentin Tarantino was planning to do if he got the rights to make CASINO ROYALE. He was going to set it in continuity right after ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. It was going to take place in the 60's, and he had Brosnan lined up as Bond and Uma Thurman as Vesper.

I don't like his idea as much as what they ended up doing, but I would have loved to have seen that movie.

 |  IP: Logged
Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001

- posted 03-16-2007 05:47 AM      Profile for Hillary Charles   Email Hillary Charles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
These different ideas for "Casino Royale" would have been fascinating to see (could only imagine how Tarantino would have handled that torture scene [evil] ), but I think they took the best route in the end. Last time I watched "Die Another Day" (yes, I watched it more than once) I kept thinking that the series has really lost it's touch. The '60's Bonds are so wonderfully "of their time," but lately the films just come across as a mish-mash.

For me, the most exciting action lately has involved
another "J.B." -- Jack Bauer on "24." The sense of danger so evident on that program had long been absent from the Bond films, and faced with the task of adapting a 1952(?) book to the screen in a post 9/11 world, IMHO, they've done a decent job making James Bond relevant again.

 |  IP: Logged
Frank Dubrois
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 896
From: Cleveland, OH
Registered: Mar 2005

- posted 03-16-2007 11:49 AM      Profile for Frank Dubrois     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Mike Schindler
It's an entirely new continuity. Storywise, they are completely disregarding what has come before.
Thats rediculous. Their taking the entire history of a character (even though it spanned 40+ years) and wiped it clean. Thats insulting. Replacing all the great movies and stories with this pile of [bs] . This movie was just retarded. From the tortue scene to the defibrillator scene, to M threatening to have Bond killed. Bring back the jet packs, submarine cars, and other Q gadgets. I've had my fill of gritty reality based crap. If I want reality, I dont have to go to the movies, all I have to do is step outside. I guess all this gritty realism stuff were seeing in the movies and TV is there for a reason, SOMEONE likes its. Count me out.

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Heenan
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1896
From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

- posted 03-16-2007 12:05 PM      Profile for Mike Heenan   Email Mike Heenan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Umm, so what did you think of the torture scenes in Die Another Day? Also, they showed said scenes during the theme song as well, which broke from the formula of just shadowy naked ladies (I think this is the only time it's been done, except for FYEO where Sheena Easton appears on the screen).

 |  IP: Logged
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

- posted 03-16-2007 12:09 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
OK, Frank. You're counted out. You hated the movie. Fine.

I really liked Casino Royale. So did a lot of other people, enough that this new direction for Bond movies is a done deal. Those who can't stand it will just have to move on to something else.

 |  IP: Logged
Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002

- posted 03-16-2007 12:34 PM      Profile for Mike Schindler   Email Mike Schindler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Hillary Charles
For me, the most exciting action lately has involved another "J.B." -- Jack Bauer on "24."
You gotta love the Jack Bauer Power Hour! The idea of extending the show beyond the first year is kind of ridiculous, but that first season is quite possibly the finest single season of television ever produced.

quote: Frank Dubrois
Thats rediculous. Their taking the entire history of a character (even though it spanned 40+ years) and wiped it clean. Thats insulting.
It worked for BATTLESTAR GALACTICA and BATMAN BEGINS. And speaking of comic books, that medium more than any other has to deal with continuities which have been muddled by characters which have existed for decades. There are two ways to handle this. There's the Marvel way, which is to ignore the passage of time, and say that what happened in the first issue of SPIDER-MAN is canon even though it takes place in the 60's and now, in 2007, the character is still in his 20's. And then there's the DC way, which is to wipe the slate clean every decade or so so that it still kinda makes sense. Lots of the best DC stories are the retellings of these iconic characters' origins, updated so that they become relevant to the world we live in.

Bond went the Marvel route for the first 20 movies. It worked through Roger Moore, because Moore portrayed an older Bond. But when Dalton came in, that led to some questionable continuity. So now they've finally wised up and pulled a DC. I'm not saying that you can't make the Marvel way work, but the DC way makes a whole lot more sense.

And those original movies aren't going away. They still exist in their own 20-movie long continuity which can be viewed for years to come.

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.