
P. Diddy spends £500k on 007 Audition Tape!
#91
Posted 06 January 2009 - 12:00 PM
ive seen it all now
#92
Posted 16 January 2009 - 01:33 PM
#93
Posted 16 January 2009 - 04:22 PM
#94
Posted 16 January 2009 - 04:54 PM
#95
Posted 17 January 2009 - 04:55 PM
1) Black people population increase is more than the white ones.
2) Black people genes are more powerful. Just look at Obama. His mother is white but it doesnt seem so.
If the current situation goes like this (Europe and UK being more non-white) and James Bond still exists ofcourse oneday there will be a black James Bond.
One day all the world be black so why not James Bond

#96
Posted 17 January 2009 - 08:17 PM
Its just a matter of time:
1) Black people population increase is more than the white ones.
2) Black people genes are more powerful. Just look at Obama. His mother is white but it doesnt seem so.

#97
Posted 18 January 2009 - 08:18 AM
Its just a matter of time:
1) Black people population increase is more than the white ones.
2) Black people genes are more powerful. Just look at Obama. His mother is white but it doesnt seem so.
What, isnt this right ?
#98
Posted 20 January 2009 - 12:18 AM
Give me a break, as Bond fan it makes me sick to my stomach, to hear that and see that. I hope he does not try to apporch Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli with that idea and the video tape. If he does, I hope Michael and Barbara will be like Simon Cowell in saying no way your wrong for the role, what were you thinking. If P. Diddy do play Bond, two people will majorly be turing in their grave. Michael and Barbara are very smart people, and know their father Albert Broccoli is one and the other is Ian Fleming. If they weren't smart, then the Bond movie business would have been dead even before Craig's time.
P. Diddy just does not fit any spy roles at all, super or close to the real world type, so no Nick Fury, Jack Ryan, John Clark, The Man From Uncle and Our Man Flint. If he wants to mever play any kind of spys he'll have to do those black movies where there is no Hollywood A list directors or stars being part of it, and the ones based on novels from authors of spy novels.
Edited by Syndicate, 20 January 2009 - 04:53 AM.
#99
Posted 20 January 2009 - 01:12 AM

darthbond
#100
Posted 20 January 2009 - 02:10 AM
As misguided as it is, I have to admit I do find it rather endearing.
I don't. $750 K is far too much money to blow on a pointless vanity project, especially in this economy. There are people losing their homes and businesses and this poseur feels the need to stroke his ego by throwing money at a lost cause.
Sad. Quite. Do people REALLY become this far removed from reality just because of their celebrity? I've seen some rather sad and egregious examples up close of Celebrities-in-Space, but this is fairly pathetic.
An uneducated, talentless thug with money is still an uneducated, talentless thug.
Edited by Kristian, 20 January 2009 - 02:22 AM.
#101
Posted 20 January 2009 - 08:01 AM

#102
Posted 20 January 2009 - 08:41 AM
Because Snipes is the poor man's Denzel Washington/Samuel L. Jackson.Well why not Wesley Snipes ? The Art of War II seems familiar...
#103
Posted 20 January 2009 - 11:49 PM
Because Snipes is the poor man's Denzel Washington/Samuel L. Jackson.Well why not Wesley Snipes ? The Art of War II seems familiar...
In a way Snipes has become the B movie world's version of Denzel Washington and Samuel L. Jackson. At this point I don't think he will be able to get out of the B movie side of Hollywood, just like Van Damme and Seagal is not able to anymore. even if Van Damme and Seagal were not a B movie star, it would have been a big joke if they wanted to play James Bond, just like is a big joke of P. Diddy playing James bond. I think Snipes might have that fate too if he was not a B movie star and wanted to do the role. There are some A list stars that would be a big joke if they wanted to play James Bond. I posted some that I think would be on the topic What Stars Would Get You Not To See A Bond Movie.
#104
Posted 01 February 2009 - 04:41 AM




#105
Posted 01 February 2009 - 10:24 AM
As misguided as it is, I have to admit I do find it rather endearing.
I don't. $750 K is far too much money to blow on a pointless vanity project, especially in this economy. There are people losing their homes and businesses and this poseur feels the need to stroke his ego by throwing money at a lost cause.
As I said before, if we go down this route, we might as well condemn every medium to high budget entertainment venture, and certainly most films. I mean is blowing untold millions on 22 ultimately very similar films any worse than Mr. Diddy's hubris when you think what could have been done with the money? I don't think so, but this is the way the world is, and I'm afraid there's really nothing we can do about it; might as well enjoy the films.
Believe me, I truly loath foolhardy decadance, but there is little point bearing this silly rapper any real animosity in a world where actors gladly accept $20 million pay cheques!
#106
Posted 01 February 2009 - 10:54 AM
#107
Posted 01 February 2009 - 03:52 PM
As misguided as it is, I have to admit I do find it rather endearing.
I don't. $750 K is far too much money to blow on a pointless vanity project, especially in this economy. There are people losing their homes and businesses and this poseur feels the need to stroke his ego by throwing money at a lost cause.
As I said before, if we go down this route, we might as well condemn every medium to high budget entertainment venture, and certainly most films. I mean is blowing untold millions on 22 ultimately very similar films any worse than Mr. Diddy's hubris when you think what could have been done with the money? I don't think so, but this is the way the world is, and I'm afraid there's really nothing we can do about it; might as well enjoy the films.
Believe me, I truly loath foolhardy decadance, but there is little point bearing this silly rapper any real animosity in a world where actors gladly accept $20 million pay cheques!
Your logic is laughable. So you're actually placing Diddy's Vanity Tape on par with the Bond films? Or any other legitimate film, for that matter? My. God.
I can understand blowing millions of dollars on something that has a purpose, e.g., a film for entertainment. A fully realized film is worth spending money on, whether or not it ultimately fails. And I have no problem with actors' astronomical salaries. While they may be too high, these people are still instrumental in getting films made. Films that I, you, we all love to watch.
Diddy's flick, on the other hand, serves no real entertainment or redeeming value. And, yes, $750 K. is still too much and too egregious an amount to pay for what is basically a navel-gazing home movie in this bleak economy. He deserves to be checked for that.
Apples. Oranges. Please don't lower the entire art of cinema by equating it with this poseur's laughable attempt to be something he isn't.
Edited by Kristian, 01 February 2009 - 03:55 PM.
#108
Posted 01 February 2009 - 05:14 PM
As misguided as it is, I have to admit I do find it rather endearing.
I don't. $750 K is far too much money to blow on a pointless vanity project, especially in this economy. There are people losing their homes and businesses and this poseur feels the need to stroke his ego by throwing money at a lost cause.
As I said before, if we go down this route, we might as well condemn every medium to high budget entertainment venture, and certainly most films. I mean is blowing untold millions on 22 ultimately very similar films any worse than Mr. Diddy's hubris when you think what could have been done with the money? I don't think so, but this is the way the world is, and I'm afraid there's really nothing we can do about it; might as well enjoy the films.
Believe me, I truly loath foolhardy decadance, but there is little point bearing this silly rapper any real animosity in a world where actors gladly accept $20 million pay cheques!
Your logic is laughable. So you're actually placing Diddy's Vanity Tape on par with the Bond films? Or any other legitimate film, for that matter? My. God.
I can understand blowing millions of dollars on something that has a purpose, e.g., a film for entertainment. A fully realized film is worth spending money on, whether or not it ultimately fails. And I have no problem with actors' astronomical salaries. While they may be too high, these people are still instrumental in getting films made. Films that I, you, we all love to watch
I am not putting it on the same level, my point is that it's pointless going on a moralistic rant about money being wasted on a vanity project no matter how crap it is, because at what point does spending vast amounts of money spent on something become justified by the entirely subjective entertainment value it provides? I guess you disagree with that, but can you really justify actors being paid upwards of $20million? I agree they are an important part of film making, but the amount of money... oh

#109
Posted 05 February 2009 - 05:53 PM
And James Bond doesn't wear sunglasses it's considered too common unless one is skiing. Poor Mr Diddy, I wonder if he feels even the remotest sense of embarassment?
Have you seen FRWL, TB, CR or even QoS????
Bond is seen wearing sunshades in the aforementioned.
#110
Posted 05 February 2009 - 10:52 PM
#111
Posted 06 February 2009 - 02:32 AM
This is a man, who in his blog entry immediately preceding his self-absorbed jerk-off of an ad, likens himself to Barack Obama, Martin Luther King and other prominent African Americans who actually represented something. Diddy, on the other hand, sits around raking in millions out of record sales and "fashion". He contributes nothing, consumes everything and still has the gall to compare himself to some of history's greatest people.And Poor Mr Diddy, I wonder if he feels even the remotest sense of embarassment?
So no. I don't think he feels even a shred of embarrassment.
#112
Posted 12 February 2009 - 11:43 PM
#113
Posted 23 February 2009 - 04:13 PM
1. He could have the talent to play Bond.
2. He could ever have the nationality to play Bond.
3. See #1 again.
#114
Posted 23 February 2009 - 10:17 PM

MAybe he was talking about being in Austin Powers?
Edited by NVT, 23 February 2009 - 10:23 PM.