BOND 21 (start talking...)

sola sistim · #1 08-09-2005, 04:39 AM

im surprised an Australian actor is up there...
nearly all Aussie actors are shit.

Jason Roth · #2 08-09-2005, 05:51 AM

As long as they use the new Aston Martin DB9 for the car, I'm ok with any actor.

lukeyd · #3 08-09-2005, 07:47 AM

maybe this is the reason why bonds have become so bad. why is so much emphasis placed on the car? if the car were that amazing watch topgear, dont spend millions on a film with stupid characters

i dunno, i used to like them, and i still watch the repeats if i've got nothing better to do.....but the last movie was soooooooooooo bad (apart from the opening sequence - genius). how is it good to conform to a formular used 20 times before?

big screen satellite · #4 09-01-2005, 01:59 AM

well this site sums up everything thats happened so far...and it looks a real mess...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr..._id=1001051319

how many actors can be put forward for the role...looks like no-one wants to do it, or those that are tested are not agreed upon...

the January start date looks unlikley

Animal Boything · #5 09-03-2005, 02:43 PM

Jonny Lee Miller, dammit!

james · #6 08-09-2005, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sola sistim

im surprised an Australian actor is up there...

George Lazenby (he who was Bond in O.H.M.S.S.) was from down under.

big screen satellite · #7 08-09-2005, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james

George Lazenby (he who was Bond in O.H.M.S.S.) was from down under.

he was shite though

lukeyd · #8 08-10-2005, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by big screen satellite

he was shite though

i quite liked that one - it was different form all the others in so many ways (bond not working for mi5, he gets married, cries when girl dies) it was a bond movie in the sense that it had james bond in it, but thats about it. i just dont see why that is a bad thing.

i suppose this again highlights why i dont get bond movies. they have made big movies fairly devoid of any emotionally developed characters, massive focus is placed on gadgets and cars (wtf? how can this carry a movie? - nobody claims that the rock was a great movie because it had a hummer and a lambo in it, there were other reasons). the girls are pretty much one dimensional unrealistic eye candy (im for this, in a sense, but repeat 20 times over? sometimes more than once a movie? hmmmmm).

bond movies = lazy.

big screen satellite · #9 08-11-2005, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lukeyd

i quite liked that one - it was different form all the others in so many ways (bond not working for mi5, he gets married, cries when girl dies) it was a bond movie in the sense that it had james bond in it, but thats about it. i just dont see why that is a bad thing.

.

no the movoie was good, just didn't rate Lazyboy in the role...but i liked the way they dealt with the death of Bonds wife

"...we have all the time in the world..."

Deckard · #10 08-30-2005, 03:14 PM

Interesting choice of screenwriter...

Quote:

Well, here's a twist we didn't see coming. Casino Royale's producers have employed a new writer to redraft the script, and it's none other than Crash and Million Dollar Baby scribe, Paul Haggis.

He has taken over scribing duties from two-time Bond screenwriters Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (who penned The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day), but being Oscar nominated and with a sleeper hit on his hands with Crash, Haggis is a busy boy these days, and the real question is when is he going to fit Bond into his schedule?

http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/n...?news_id=17072