55 replies to this topic

[marktmurphy]

True...but there's also a reason why CBn does not have any EON/Danjaq copyrighted images on its site.

Like I said, Dave knows the rules.

Well, they only worked the rules out after breaking them!

[marktmurphy]

Well,

I don't how much clearer it can get that they wanted him with the pictures of him signing the contract, next to the director, and in front of Cubby's Rolls Royce in front of the 007 stage, etc.

There is a 1986 or 1987 TV interview with Cubby & Michael where Cubby emphatically states "We never wanted Pierce Brosnan."

Huh?  So those pictures and the contract was for show?

I agree, had they been desperate for Brosnan they would have bent over backwards and fought/bargained with NBC.

Well, according to the TLD DVD (not a totally unbiased source, I know) Dalton was the first choice and Brosnan was a replacement when Tim proved unavailable. Then the situation managed to reverse itself.

[Operation: Thunderball]

I've noticed the site seems to have an anti-Eon bias to it. Frankly, Cubby and Harry were not 100 percent perfect in their decisions.

The current Eon have given us 3 different types of James Bond movies in the last 3 outings. They are trying to "mix it up" a little and now seem to have taken a potential box office risk to freshen things up a little. Credit to them, non?

Plus, they kept quiet while Pierce was doing all the public criticizing.

I mean, Eon seem to have maitained a sense of 'class' inspite of Brosnan's ranting and raving and are about to potentially deliver the 4th different type of 007 movie in 4 goes.

That's pretty good going in my books.

So, why the anti Eon bias within CBn?

(Just curious)

[doublenoughtspy]

Operation Thunderball,

You haven't liked a few things here - should we turn around and accuse you of "anti-CBn bias"?

Please don't characterize our entire web site, its crew, and its populace as anti-Eon based on a few negative threads.

[zencat]

Please don't characterize our entire web site, its crew, and its populace as anti-Eon based on a few negative threads.

Exactly. Saying CBn has an "anti Eon bias" is ridiculous and, frankly, offensive.

[Stratus]

Some of the English papers (ie; the paper which published James Bland) are infinitely more slanderous and read by a lot more people. At least some of the arguments in this forum are better formed and the criticism are more confined within a niche of fans. Just because there is a consensus on one thing it is NOT STOPPING anyone from countering it; if counter-arguments are censored then that is a real problem, which is not the case.

Edited by Stratus, 24 October 2005 - 05:11 PM.

[DLibrasnow]

CBn is held hostage by the views of its members....that's the nature of a site like this.

That's also the reason site's have moderators that can delete offensive remarks and edit out libel.

I just want to point out one inaccuracy that keeps getting repeated... "slander" is verbal, when it appears in a written form it is "libel."

[Genrewriter]

Exactly. Saying CBn has an "anti Eon bias" is ridiculous and, frankly, offensive. 

Absolutely. A James Bond site with an "anti Eon bias" is contradictory and nonsensical.

[tdalton]

Please don't characterize our entire web site, its crew, and its populace as anti-Eon based on a few negative threads.

Exactly. Saying CBn has an "anti Eon bias" is ridiculous and, frankly, offensive.

I certainly agree with that. Also, how could a Bond site be anti-EON anyway? Without EON, there are no Bond movies, and thus no reason for a site like this. While I may disagree with some of EON's decisions, I ultimately know that they know more about the character than I do and that without them, the only way we'd be able to be entertained by 007 in a series of novels written over 40 years ago. Simply, without EON, Bond would not exist today.

[Mister Asterix]

Exactly. Saying CBn has an "anti Eon bias" is ridiculous and, frankly, offensive. 

Absolutely. A James Bond site with an "anti Eon bias" is contradictory and nonsensical.

Except of course www.flemingisgodandallthemoviesdanceonhisgrave.co.uk.

[Operation: Thunderball]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='24 October 2005 - 18:14'][quote name='Genrewriter' date='24 October 2005 - 12:09'][quote name='zencat' date='24 October 2005 - 10:01']Exactly. Saying CBn has an "anti Eon bias" is ridiculous and, frankly, offensive.

[zencat]

I think Operation: Thunderball clearly has an anti-Fleming bias.

[Stratus]

I think this site has a James Bond bias. Clearly something must be done to deal with this unacceptable behaviour. We need more Halle Berry and Jinx to spice things up.

[Streetworker]

Fleming was a bigot, a snob, an adulterer, a substance abuser and a wife beater.

In other words, all the things that make life worth living...

First post and already controversial. Ah, well..

[Mister Asterix]

Operation Thunderball,

You haven't liked a few things here - should we turn around and accuse you of "anti-CBn bias"?

Please don't characterize our entire web site, its crew, and its populace as anti-Eon based on a few negative threads.

[mra]His anti-CBn bias stems from the fact that he has already been banned once or twice or thrice. Isn

[Emma]

And o, Fleming is NOT 'god'. He, however, was a bigot, a snob, an adulterer, a substance abuser and a wife beater.



LOL!

I didn't know Fleming beat his wife.

[doublenoughtspy]

Well wife beater implies domestic violence which is not accurate.

She enjoyed being spanked and Ian enjoyed spanking, so it worked out rather well.

[Streetworker]

And o, Fleming is NOT 'god'. He, however, was a bigot, a snob, an adulterer, a substance abuser and a wife beater.

 



LOL!

I didn't know Fleming beat his wife.

He did - but with her consent. She always claimed to adore being hit by him. Theirs was definitely an S&M relationship!

[Roebuck]

I didn't know Fleming beat his wife.

Yes, but only if she asked him nicely.

Seriously, read the letters between the two of them and Ann Fleming comes across as something of an S & M freak. In their own ways they were both severely damaged and unhappy people, who found ways emotionally torture each other throughout their marriage.

(Sorry Streetworker - my post is somewhat redundant seeing as how yours covered the same ground.)

Edited by Roebuck, 24 October 2005 - 10:04 PM.

[Streetworker]

They were both Geminis. When Fleming found this out, he predicted "china would be thrown and tears would be shed.."

[Frankie]

Frankly, Cubby and Harry were not 100 percent perfect in their decisions.

This I agree with. Here are some terrible EON decisions on their watch:

1- Not having continuity for the Felix Leiter role. Every Leiter was drastically different from the one in the previous film.
2- re-using recognizable faces in different roles in different Bond flicks as if there was a shortage og actors. I mean who twisted their arms to miscast Charles Gray as Blofeld in DAF after? Not only whis guy so wrong for the role, but also he had a fairly memorable role (Henderson)in YOLT. They didn't even bother to have Gray made up for the Blofeld role to look different from Henderson.
3- Giving in to the 70s "Smokey and the Bandit" audience taste and making Bond into a cartoon.

However they are also the ones who gave us Sean Connery as Bond, who perhaps will never be duplicated. Also they deserve credit for a lot of forever cool aspects of the Bond franchise. The theme music, the gunbarrel, etc. No other future Bond franchise will ever equal those. So, overall, I'm thankful for them.

[Frankie]

Eon....are about to potentially deliver the 4th different type of 007 movie in 4 goes.

Continuity. That's the magic world with Bond movies. I personally don't believe there'll be another Bond actor as good as Connery. But I have liked Dalton and Brosnan and to a lesser extent Lazenby and Moore. Bond movies have been all over the place trying to imitate competing movie trends. If Hitchcock could live forever, he would of course use the current technology, but his movies would still be Hichcockian. Bond movies should always keep the spirit of the early Bonds and the actor should always be somehow reminiscent of Connery as they can get them. Most of Moore's Bonds failed that and the idiotic "Bond restart" idea and the casting of Daniel Craig is a blatant disregard of that spirit.

Edited by Frankie, 25 October 2005 - 12:03 AM.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

If we are talking Tomorrow Never Dies I wonder if the "smoking scene" was to be the one in which he is waiting in his hotel room wondering who Carver would send? Got to be, surely.

If memory serves me right, I seem to remember Brosnan discussing this scene with the director, Roger Spottiswoode, on how to show the frustration in Bond's character after nearly being killed by Carver's goons. Brosnan thought about smoking a cigarette but felt that it was not good for children to be exposed to a nasty habit. It was decided to show him drinking instead (yet another bad habit).

This is the first place I have heard anything of Brosnan and the Broccolis having any conflict outside of the pre-Casino Royale decision. Sure, there is always disagreements between employees and employers, but I tend to believe the comment by Michael G. Wilson that they had reach a point in the series that each film was beginning to look like the last. None of the Brosnan films are original with the exception of GoldenEye. And Die Another Day was great from the start but became too over-the-top by the end that they could not get Bond out of the cliffhanger except by an impossible act that could only be shown in computer graphics.

This is not to say they don't get along. Rather they need to take the series into another direction and breathe new life into it.

Every Bond film is a challenge and I have to give both Barbara and Michael high marks for walking to the edge of the precipice and take a leap of faith in the direction they are attempting. The days of superBond and superagents with jet packs may be gone. In its place will be a more human Bond who bleeds and loses friends and lovers. Bond may even be in a position of giving it all up at the end of Casino Royale only to have Mathis (father figure) explaining to him the life-lesson that evil must be delt with by people such as Bond.

It should make for a great scene if they go that direction and if they do, the series will certainly have made a big turn for the best.

[Loomis]

If we are talking Tomorrow Never Dies I wonder if the "smoking scene" was to be the one in which he is waiting in his hotel room wondering who Carver would send? Got to be, surely.

If memory serves me right, I seem to remember Brosnan discussing this scene with the director, Roger Spottiswoode, on how to show the frustration in Bond's character after nearly being killed by Carver's goons. Brosnan thought about smoking a cigarette but felt that it was not good for children to be exposed to a nasty habit. It was decided to show him drinking instead (yet another bad habit).

They should have had Bond picking up a packet of fags, toying with the cellophane, and agonising over whether to open it, before muttering "Filthy habit!" and chucking it over his shoulder. As an optional extra to that (with some nice scope for further product placement), Bond could then have cracked open a packet of nicotine chewing gum instead.

[Mona Lovesit]

He later chewed Paris's shoulder instead.

Very sexy actually.

[jaguar007]

[quote name='David Schofield' date='24 October 2005 - 06:12'][quote name='doublenoughtspy' date='24 October 2005 - 14:07']Well,

I don't how much clearer it can get that they wanted him with the pictures of him signing the contract, next to the director, and in front of Cubby's Rolls Royce in front of the 007 stage, etc.

There is a 1986 or 1987 TV interview with Cubby & Michael where Cubby emphatically states "We never wanted Pierce Brosnan."

Huh?