146 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

The numbing, brutish, less-clever violence and sensitive realism will divert you from the thievery of the character's soul.

Isn't the more brutish, less-clever violence part of Fleming's Bond?

And his chief method of rebellion came from a brilliant intellect which he used to armour a spirit of hedonism and distaste for authority. But I digress.

Well, "brilliant intellect" sounds less like Fleming's Bond and more like Cubby's Bond, but still, Craig's Bond seems quite smart indeed. Furthermore, Craig's Bond demonstrates a spirit of hedonism and a distaste for authority.

Because although some may find the older films slow and perhaps sexist, (whatever, girls I know prefer the older femmes) they appear to to me infinitely more sophisticated and artistic.

Bond should be sexist. The films themselves shouldn't be. And Bond is quite certainly sexist in CASINO ROYALE.

Will the setting be an industrial warehouse or the penthouse of Willard White.

Isn't CASINO ROYALE set almost entirely in glorious, beautiful locales? In fact, CASINO ROYALE feels like the most exotic and glamorous Bond adventure in ages.

Will the story unfold with rhythm and pace, or will we just assume that action will overcome any pacing issues.

I'd argue that CASINO ROYALE has quite a lot of rhythm and pace. But that's just me.

Will the sight of a tipsy Bond offend the reputation of intelligence agencies the world over.

When has Bond ever been presented as tipsy in the films? And I can't think of many examples where Bond has been tipsy in Fleming's novels, either.

Will the music be abrasive without a discernible melody or will there be more subtlety and perhaps an attempt to decipher John Barry's use of music.

Well, I think there are plenty of melodic sections to the score for CASINO ROYALE, including Vesper's very memorable theme.

Now is not the time to surrender the novelty of Bonds intellect and efficiency in all areas which probably bewilder his fellow double 0's.

Umm... isn't Bond's intellect fairly large in CASINO ROYALE? I mean, he is a rather smart cookie, and his wit is impeccable. And isn't he certainly a remarkably efficient agent - a little cocky, but efficient nonetheless?

We should always wonder exactly how his hair is still in place and his collar isn't ruffled despite the fact he just saved the world. He would be annoying in real life, but we would have no choice but to bow down.

See, the "not a hair out of place" element is not a requisite for Bond, if you ask me. In fact, I rather dislike that element of the Bondian persona and thought it was wisely chucked.

That wasn't part of Fleming's Bond or early Connery Bond (and arguably later Connery Bond as well). Bond should look messy when its called for him to look messy.

[00Twelve]

Agreed, Harmsway. Not a hair out of place? He can't even keep that comma of hair in place even when he's not saving the world in the novels!

Incidentally, as far as locations go, I defy anybody to find locations that make Lake Como look ugly. I've been waiting for years for EON to use that place. And as far as gritty torture locations, I can't see how that place didn't seem appropriate. I don't think I'd buy Le Chiffre having a big gold room and a laser to torture Bond with.

I mean, I don't want to tell anybody how to define Bond, but I'm just more interested in a character that gets hurt and bleeds and deals with life just like we do. I see that in Craig's Bond, and I guess I'm still realizing I hadn't seen that in the films in years.

[tdalton]

I mean, I don't want to tell anybody how to define Bond, but I'm just more interested in a character that gets hurt and bleeds and deals with life just like we do. I see that in Craig's Bond, and I guess I'm still realizing I hadn't seen that in the films in years.

I'm much more interested in that type of character as well. The Bond films where Bond is almost like an invincible superhero that saves the day with a one-liner or two certainly have their place. Even though I greatly prefer films like FRWL, TLD, LTK, and CR, I certainly enjoy films such as LALD, TSWLM, MR, and Octopussy and, at some point, I'm sure that those types of films will return to the series, and rightfully so. But, right now, I couldn't be more excited for what is to come from the Craig Era, and the fact that EON managed to get an actor of Craig's caliber to play Bond opens up a great new future for the Bond franchise to go in virtually any direction that EON/Sony want to take it in.

[Publius]

I mean, I don't want to tell anybody how to define Bond, but I'm just more interested in a character that gets hurt and bleeds and deals with life just like we do. I see that in Craig's Bond, and I guess I'm still realizing I hadn't seen that in the films in years.

Yeah, I actually care about the guy now, and it's exciting to not know what's going to happen next. The superhero stuff bores me completely. Bond's actually cooler by not being one.

[Dr. Noah]

Hello, I haven't posted here since probably TWINE when balance, discontent and sanity were alive and well in those days.

This has been an interesting run with the world of Bond this time out. Quite surprising, really. But unlike a well paid critic, I'm not blown away.

I've followed the series since I saw Moonraker in the theaters when I was 7. And though stones may be cast, I must in good conscience ensure that these boards represent a wholly inclusive reflection of authentic reaction, even from an admited simpleton. See, I didn't even spell admitted right.

I despised Casino Royale.

This should not be inflammatory. I take no pleasure in saying that. Well, maybe alittle.

My review could not be up to the current CBN standard if I tried and would only resemble a perceived trolling which would result in endless disection, point by point. Good fun I might add, if the deck were not so stacked against me here. Why is that?

Because the film made almost $600 mil in theaters, is currently #1 in Amazon DVD sales, and gets a 99% favorable rating at Rotten Tomatoes, which averages critical reaction. So you're in a decided minority.

You also spelled "a little" wrong, BTW.

To qualify my rant, being my first post here in a while, I wanted to go on record, not to piss on anyones clean clothes here, but rather to just say I love Bond films, I was blown away when I first saw OHMSS at age 18, a long time ago. Particularly because I avoided it for so long. Lazenby grew on me in the first act. I was in the theater when Moore bowed out and likewise when Dalton had his first close-up. I endured the legal desert that followed LTK. Moore was my Bond as a kid yet Goldfinger my favorite film. Picking one over the other was redundant even as a kid. I thought Brosnan was the best choice at the time even though I've never walked out of a Brosnan Bond entirely satisfied. Not like when I've just finished watching FYEO. Point is, I never gave up on him or said something so stupid as to suggest putting the series to pasture. Only from the visionless do we here that particular sentiment. And I support him still, although my fervor is now running on fumes. I'm not the enemy when I say... (or maybe I am)...

...I despised Casino Royale.

I loathed almost everything about it. Even DC. Sorry chaps, this is the counterfeit Bond in its fullest manifestation. My opinion is that THIS IS NOT FLEMINGS CHARACTER AND CUBBY WOULD BE HORRIFIED.

Barbara Broccoli Film Stew interview

"...Broccoli briefly discussed how her father

[jaguar007]

"We should always wonder exactly how his hair is still in place and his collar isn't ruffled despite the fact he just saved the world. He would be annoying in real life, but we would have no choice but to bow down."

The Bond you refer to is the Bond that I consider "the parody Bond". If you watch the train fight in FRWL, Bond certainly has his hair messed and his clothes are ruffled. I also suggest reading some of Fleming's books, Bond lives in a very rough world and is not walking out of violent situations unscathed.

[Dr. Noah]

"We should always wonder exactly how his hair is still in place and his collar isn't ruffled despite the fact he just saved the world. He would be annoying in real life, but we would have no choice but to bow down."

The Bond you refer to is the Bond that I consider "the parody Bond". If you watch the train fight in FRWL, Bond certainly has his hair messed and his clothes are ruffled. I also suggest reading some of Fleming's books, Bond lives in a very rough world and is not walking out of violent situations unscathed.

Not only that, but it means you've stepped out of the movie. If the audience has to step back and figure out why something onscreen is different than it should be, you've just stopped the momentum of the story. Fleming went to great lengths in his books to make everything seem as real as possible. Unmussed hair after an action scene isn't a character statement, it's a Hollywood cliche from bad B-movies where the continuity is bad.

[chanoch]

The hair and collar remark was more or less a metaphor.

[dodge]

"We should always wonder exactly how his hair is still in place and his collar isn't ruffled despite the fact he just saved the world. He would be annoying in real life, but we would have no choice but to bow down."

The Bond you refer to is the Bond that I consider "the parody Bond". If you watch the train fight in FRWL, Bond certainly has his hair messed and his clothes are ruffled. I also suggest reading some of Fleming's books, Bond lives in a very rough world and is not walking out of violent situations unscathed.

Something else I'd missed for years and many viewings: Connery's knuckles are also pretty badly bloodied, a la Craig in CR.

[chanoch]

My focus is on the overall tone, not hair and blood. Sorry, that sounds a bit unpleasant. He's bled before and that has nothing to do with the art. There you go, making that my entire point, which misses the point.

I've lobbed some perhaps uncouth remarks here out of concern for the direction we "appear" to be heading. After some reflection, I would like to conclude by lobbing some thoughts and hopes for the future of 007. As I said, I'm not here to bash Bond on a daily basis, so lend me yer ear one more time for my parting thoughts on 3 critical points:


1) Bond's demeanor:

As I mentioned before and though you may not care for the analogy, Bond IS counterculture. This is key. Authority now days can come across as just to the right of creepy. "Intelligence gathering" in these times has taken on very precarious conotations for some aspects of the citizenry. So I suggest that Bond not lose sight of his intellect, lofty philosophy and humorous temperment. I do not suggest disloyalty, but rather that the "monk" half adheres to a higher code that trancends being a mere blunt instrument. Though he may only wear the mask of a gentleman, Bond is one of the good guys, first and foremost, who approaches life with much irony - which translates into a sense of humor. We shouldn't apologize, surrender or resent his genius. At the very least, this gives him eccentricity, so he doesn't require a woman to help him dress.


2) The sound of Bond:

I've tried to narrow down my problem with the overall cinematic tone and consequently, volume, of this most noble and artistic franchaise. I've commented on the music, but to be fair, it's more a matter of the manner in which our senses are assaulted. Maybe less heavy artillery and more of what I would consider PRIMAL STIMULATION could be good. I'm referring to instances such as the tarantula that creeps up Connery's arm, the drop of poison that oozes from a ninjas twine or the voodoo of LALD. These elements strike a chord in this viewer in a way that exploding tanker trucks cannot. The carnivorous hounds of MR carry a shock value and nervous tension, a morbid sadism that makes Bonds presence more comforting. Consequently, he should CONTRAST the thugs he's pitted against vivdly. So, this element of the bizarre and even horrific, has been lost like atlantis. When I speak of humorous violence, what I really mean is more of the playful irony I grew to love about Bond films. Death isn't necessarily funny, but irony and fate are timelessly amusing. We're all gonna check out at some point, that's reality. There's no reason to be so grim about it in a James Bond movie. And let's not forget that the best Bonds arguably were musical affairs. I realize J Barry is a tough act to follow, but I plead with you to think outside the box. The art of film scores has been going down a sinkhole and your movies are the poorer for it.

3) The "Fantastic":

And finally, I defend the writer/producers excursions into the fantastic. Partly because they do it so well. Better than anybody. They only ask for plausible suspension of disbelief. How much guff was given to DAD for its invisible car, a technology which is literally right around the corner. There is no foul there. Yet time and time again, this is referenced as an example of unrealism. Well, catagorically, it's not. And there is nothing silly about the idea to our respective intelligence agencies. Consult popular mechanics. If the fate of the world hangs in the balance, would you expect them to equip their man in the field with anything less? Or should they save the gadgets for something more important. So when we speak of fantastic, we don't have to assume it means space stations and superheroes. The modern world has become a fantastic place and Bond would be there, more often than not, 20 minutes in the future. Hopefully, the fans finally got their FRWL so we don't have to stay in '63 for the sake of realism. Much is possible in the Bond universe and the use of the fantastic is integral to its longevity. And besides, "if it hadn't been for Q-Branch...."

In conclusion, what I hope from the artists, is the return of a Bond era in which unconvention is acheived through vision and invention and less chucking of tradition. A string of films which challenge the notions and expectations of what it means to go see a "contemporary action piece", for surely Goldfinger is more than just an action film.

Thanks for listening chaps.

Best of luck,
Chanoch

Edited by chanoch, 21 March 2007 - 12:56 AM.

[Harmsway]

The modern world has become a fantastic place and Bond would be there, more often than not, 20 minutes in the future.

I'd argue that CASINO ROYALE took the right tactic, for CASINO ROYALE, anyway. Epic, silly gadgetry is fine and all for the epic, silly romps, but not for what CASINO ROYALE was going after.

[RazorBlade]

I'd like to say that I have a hard time following your logic, Chanock. In a previous post you said you weren't writing a mid-term but writing for us. Well, write the gorram mid-term so I can understand what you've said. I, too, allow you your opinion, but it's hard for me to reply when all I can see is a word salad. If English isn't your native language I apologize ahead of time.

Like some others, part of what is difficult for me is the way you seem to know how people are going to react. Like the rest of us won't like the fact that "bond is counter-culture" or how Cubby would respond. No one knows how Cubby would respond because Cubby is dead and can't respond anymore. May that great man rest in peace. I, for one, agree with you that Bond is counter-culture and it isn't offensive to me at all. Like you, I like that he is. It makes sense because he is a man who defends our culture but can't be a part of it. See the character known as The Operative in the film SERENITY for a brillant comment on James Bond. Wait, are you saying that 007 is too PC? Huh?

I'm glad you brought up the amount of action in the film, I don't know of anyone else who has commented on how the action cut into the story (if I'm following you correctly). IMHO it did. There are probably whole sections that can be cut out of CR that would reduce the running time without deleting the story line at all; unlike TB or GF where every scene is necessary for the story. If you are saying that the screen action, violence if you like, overwhelms the story aspect I would agree with that as well. But only in some sections of the movie. That does make CR somewhat like B grade actioners. To be fair, CR also gives us some down time, something missing from B grade actioners. The lovely character moments in CR would sadly get chopped out of most movies. On the other hand, sometimes you put stuff in movies just because it looks cool, like a musical stopping the story for a song and dance number that allows us to gaze on a female dancers bare legs, or King Kong fighting a dinosaur on Skull island, or all of Star Wars Ep 2, or a free running chase through a construction site in Africa.

I don't know what you meant by the lack of fantasy in CR, most of that film is fantasy. The free running, the Aston Martin DBS flipping over (they just don't- good kit that), that a man can usa defib on himself (without magentizing his watch!), straighten his tie and go back to a poker game can change the fate of the world. If none of that is fantasy to you, may I come hang out with you for a few weeks? Please?

No film is perfect, although CASABLANCA, THE WIZARD OF OZ, BLUE VELVET, VERTIGO and a couple of others come close. But we love imperfect films, like most of the James Bond canon, anyway. In some ways I guess we might love them a little more because we can recreate them in our heads and make them better than they ever hoped to be. What I'm getting to, is that I love the heck out of CR, despite any critisms I may have of it. Hey baby, I dig it the most.

[00Twelve]

1) Bond's demeanor:

As I mentioned before and though you may not care for the analogy, Bond IS counterculture. This is key. Authority now days can come across as just to the right of creepy. "Intelligence gathering" in these times has taken on very precarious conotations for some aspects of the citizenry. So I suggest that Bond not lose sight of his intellect, lofty philosophy and humorous temperment. I do not suggest disloyalty, but rather that the "monk" half adheres to a higher code that trancends being a mere blunt instrument. Though he may only wear the mask of a gentleman, Bond is one of the good guys, first and foremost, who approaches life with much irony - which translates into a sense of humor. We shouldn't apologize, surrender or resent his genius. At the very least, this gives him eccentricity, so he doesn't require a woman to help him dress.

I do have a hard time understanding where the people who think Bond isn't "sophisticated enough" in CR think he got that sophistication from. The drive's been formatted. As of 2006, Bond has never been through 20 movies of adventures or even one year as a 00 agent. He did not pop out of the womb in a tux, or have Bollinger in his bottle. Being born in "1968," he wouldn't have learned to do that stuff at school (how many of YOU wore a perfectly tailored $10,000 tux to prom?) and to say he learned all that stuff in the SAS or any other time before his very first 00 days is pure conjecture. There's no evidence to back it up. Tuxes were worn much more frequently in the 1950s. Not so much now. And besides, he DOES dress very well, minus the tux "issue." All this same stuff goes with food. Even in the books, the only time Bond got to eat ridiculously well was on a 00 assignment, when his budget was unlimited (according to Ian Fleming's Moonraker). Well, those days began about the same time as Casino Royale is to have taken place. And again, he even DOES eat and drink well, so I don't even understand the arguments.

[Skudor]

The only thing I take issue with is the "Cubby would be turning in his grave" stuff...

Don't forget that Cubby apparently turns in his grave quite a lot. At least once a day if comments on this site are anything to go by...

[00Twelve]

I'd think Ian has been tossing and turning for a while now.

[TheREAL008]

I'm going to say this with complete honesty:

Craig's Bond has been the best Bond I've ever seen. Don't get me wrong I love all the actors and I don't deny the past work but Daniel Craig gets it RIGHT. At first I was like you chanoch but I opened my mind and gave Daniel a chance. He proved me wrong and I gladly ate my words I said about the man.

Even when Clive Owen, the guy I wanted to be Bond said Craig would do a great job I thought "You know? Daniel might be the right man for the job after all." And he is. You're looking at Royale as a continuation of the series with the other five actors. You can't because Casino Royale is James Bond version 2 movie 1. It a completely NEW series. and if you snub it you're missing out on an exciting time to be a Bond fan.

Dont judge a movie by the actor. I think Royale will surprise you if you can view it with a new perspective.

[00Twelve]

To add to my fellow 00 above, some detractors say they will return to Bond-dom after the Craig dynasty. Well, don't mean to pee on your Cheerios, but it'll still be the new continuity that CR established.

[Dr. Noah]

1) Bond's demeanor:

As I mentioned before and though you may not care for the analogy, Bond IS counterculture. This is key. Authority now days can come across as just to the right of creepy. "Intelligence gathering" in these times has taken on very precarious conotations for some aspects of the citizenry. So I suggest that Bond not lose sight of his intellect, lofty philosophy and humorous temperment. I do not suggest disloyalty, but rather that the "monk" half adheres to a higher code that trancends being a mere blunt instrument. Though he may only wear the mask of a gentleman, Bond is one of the good guys, first and foremost, who approaches life with much irony - which translates into a sense of humor. We shouldn't apologize, surrender or resent his genius. At the very least, this gives him eccentricity, so he doesn't require a woman to help him dress.

You think he sprang out of the womb knowing how to wear a suit? I think you're missing the whole point of this film. The FUN of it is seeing him learn it for the first time.

BTW, Ian Fleming was the LEAST "counterculture" author of his time. He wrote about a hero killing for the Queen. That's counterculture???

2) The sound of Bond:

I've tried to narrow down my problem with the overall cinematic tone and consequently, volume, of this most noble and artistic franchaise. I've commented on the music, but to be fair, it's more a matter of the manner in which our senses are assaulted. Maybe less heavy artillery and more of what I would consider PRIMAL STIMULATION could be good. I'm referring to instances such as the tarantula that creeps up Connery's arm, the drop of poison that oozes from a ninjas twine or the voodoo of LALD. These elements strike a chord in this viewer in a way that exploding tanker trucks cannot. The carnivorous hounds of MR carry a shock value and nervous tension, a morbid sadism that makes Bonds presence more comforting. Consequently, he should CONTRAST the thugs he's pitted against vivdly. So, this element of the bizarre and even horrific, has been lost like atlantis. When I speak of humorous violence, what I really mean is more of the playful irony I grew to love about Bond films. Death isn't necessarily funny, but irony and fate are timelessly amusing. We're all gonna check out at some point, that's reality. There's no reason to be so grim about it in a James Bond movie. And let's not forget that the best Bonds arguably were musical affairs. I realize J Barry is a tough act to follow, but I plead with you to think outside the box. The art of film scores has been going down a sinkhole and your movies are the poorer for it.

Bond films have always been the loudest in theaters. And in terms of contrasting the villains, I think, ONCE AGAIN, you're missing the whole point of this reboot, where we see Bond evolve into the guy you (think) you know.

3) The "Fantastic":

And finally, I defend the writer/producers excursions into the fantastic. Partly because they do it so well. Better than anybody. They only ask for plausible suspension of disbelief. How much guff was given to DAD for its invisible car, a technology which is literally right around the corner. There is no foul there. Yet time and time again, this is referenced as an example of unrealism. Well, catagorically, it's not. And there is nothing silly about the idea to our respective intelligence agencies. Consult popular mechanics. If the fate of the world hangs in the balance, would you expect them to equip their man in the field with anything less? Or should they save the gadgets for something more important. So when we speak of fantastic, we don't have to assume it means space stations and superheroes. The modern world has become a fantastic place and Bond would be there, more often than not, 20 minutes in the future. Hopefully, the fans finally got their FRWL so we don't have to stay in '63 for the sake of realism. Much is possible in the Bond universe and the use of the fantastic is integral to its longevity. And besides, "if it hadn't been for Q-Branch...."

You think the invisible car is close to reality? Good friggin' lord...

In conclusion, what I hope from the artists, is the return of a Bond era in which unconvention is acheived through vision and invention and less chucking of tradition. A string of films which challenge the notions and expectations of what it means to go see a "contemporary action piece", for surely Goldfinger is more than just an action film.

So if you want them to present a new vision, why are you begging them to just remake Goldfinger?

[chanoch]

Noah, in regards to the invisible car, you don't know the half of it. May the good friggin' Lord bless your invisible ark.

Not remake Goldfinger, RECAPTURE ITS SPIRIT.

Overall a good chat, although a bit shallow. Some of you could stand to get off the CR high horse. I reiterate in simpler terms, it was interesting but not very fun. Certainly no OHMSS, Lady Silvia. I argue that a young Bond would resemble an older Bond more often than not. And the traditional gun barrel opening MUST be restored. I very much enjoyed those who endeavored and labored to engage me proper. Till next time.

My first language is Sumerian, btw.

Edited by chanoch, 25 April 2007 - 02:07 AM.

[00Twelve]

Gozer the Gozerian, good evening!

Well, you certainly have your right to your interpretation of Bond, chanoch. I just cannot, by any means already attempted, understand your logic. I can't understand the logic that says that James Bond reached the plateau of sophistication and taste and self-control and humor before becoming a 00. Just can't wrap my brain around that. The producers of the latest film just wisely gave him some room to grow into "the Bond we all know and love" so that it would seem like life for a real person...continual growth. Bond of the books was not the same man in Octopussy that he was in Casino Royale. Not in any way that I can see. And you know what? I found that Bond infinitely more interesting than anyone I ever saw on screen.

I personally find the spirit of Goldfinger over the top for my Bondian taste. It needs not always be like that adventure. Don't get me wrong, I love the film, but I find FRWL, and other stories like it, to be superior in terms of story and characterization. And I care more about that than the ejector seat.

On a quick note, traditions like the gunbarrel only serve to create a feel-good, "Yay, this is a Bond movie..." mindset, and that can run the risk of causing me to have pre-judgements on how things should play out in the film, and I desperately don't want that. Just me.

I also find more fun in believing this man, in NOT being able to predict his reactions (for the first time since ?), and in seeing his character grow from a different place than in anything I've seen in Bond movies in a long time. Maybe I'm a snob for that, I dunno. I am just relishing a freedom from the limits that the storytelling has here-to-fore been stuck with. Even if we know who he's becoming, it's exciting to see just how he'll get there.

My 2 37 cents.

[Dr. Noah]

Noah, in regards to the invisible car, you don't know the half of it. May the good friggin' Lord bless your invisible ark.

Millions of little cameras... I kept wondering why Brosnan could see through the millions of little cameras in the windows, but the people looking in couldn't see him. I kept wondering how millions of little cameras could work after getting rear-ended and smashed by by a motorcycle. I kept wondering when "suspension of disbelief" became "suspension of never buying it in the first place." Mostly I kept wondering why I was still watching the movie.

Not remake Goldfinger, RECAPTURE ITS SPIRIT.

They already did a movie with its spirit. It's called GOLDFINGER. Everybody seems to have liked the spirit of this film just fine, since it's sold more tickets than all of the other Bond movies except three, the latest of them being 35 years ago, and it's probably the best-reviewed Bond film of all time.

Overall a good chat, although a bit shallow. Some of you could stand to get off the CR high horse. I reiterate in simpler terms, it was interesting but not very fun. Certainly no OHMSS, Lady Silvia. I argue that a young Bond would resemble an older Bond more often than not. And the traditional gun barrel opening MUST be restored. I very much enjoyed those who endeavored and labored to engage me proper. Till next time.

Yeah. Props to the people who can pretend he's not being condescending while telling everybody that they're all way off and his opinion is the only right one -- and still pretend they're having a conversation.

My first language is Sumerian, btw.

Maybe that's why you don't understand the movie.

[AgentPB]

Allow me a big "WTF?" moment right here. You do know Craig is contracted for at least three right? That means he will be in Bond 23.

I thought he only committed to two? I know he will probably do 3 or 4 but i thought his current contract only had two. Am i wrong?

[chanoch]

Pardon me PB for just a tick.

Good evening 00Twelve

Noah, are you a doctor of "spin" because I think you've got a real future in public relations provided you could conceivably handle your bacillus capsules with a little more care.

[Harmsway]

Allow me a big "WTF?" moment right here. You do know Craig is contracted for at least three right? That means he will be in Bond 23.

I thought he only committed to two? I know he will probably do 3 or 4 but i thought his current contract only had two. Am i wrong?

He's signed for three films.

[Dr. Noah]

Noah, are you a doctor of "spin" because I think you've got a real future in public relations provided you could conceivably handle your bacillus capsules with a little more care.

And you'd have a real future in mathematics if you could add 21 and two.

[stamper]

Old conservatives always will vote for an Man's M and the firing of Babs. Hell, if she was as ugly as Margaret Thatcher, those sames would hails all her choices.

[bill007]

My first language is Sumerian, btw.

[Santa]

Overall a good chat, although a bit shallow. Some of you could stand to get off the CR high horse. I reiterate in simpler terms

Wow. You know, if you tried a bit harder, you could come across as really, really, unpleasantly condescending. You'll have to excuse me now, I have to go and work on having deeper thoughts about a fictional spy .

[JimmyBond]

Allow me a big "WTF?" moment right here. You do know Craig is contracted for at least three right? That means he will be in Bond 23.

I thought he only committed to two? I know he will probably do 3 or 4 but i thought his current contract only had two. Am i wrong?

He's signed for three films.

Yep, ever since Lazenby walked away after one film, Eon have always had actors sign a standard three picture contract with the option of a fourth film.

[dodge]

Noah, are you a doctor of "spin" because I think you've got a real future in public relations provided you could conceivably handle your bacillus capsules with a little more care.

And you'd have a real future in mathematics if you could add 21 and two.

I was going add a future in photography but nothing would...develop.