Are You a New Member? Introduce yourself Here!

pleased to meet you WF :)

Welcome WF. Look forward to your contributions.

Whirlybird Fan wrote:

Hi everyone, just thought I'd introduce myself here.

I've been a James Bond fan for years, and I'm an avid movie fan.

I enjoy listening to music, spending time on the internet and (of course) collecting movies.

See you around.

Welcome! Hope you're doing ok up in Syd. As a Melbournian, don't hesitate to get in touch if you need any lockdown tips. Nuts to hear yesterday we are the 2nd most lockdown city in the world, having crossed over 200 days.

Not sure if I count as a new member, as I haven't posted here in eight years (maybe because the site went down for a time?) Was trying to find a particular reference I had made about ACTION JACKSON years back and, lo&behold, the bondandbeyond site came up.

Anyway, seeing GOLDFINGER is my second memory in life (JFK funeral is the first), though why I was taken to see it before I even turned 4 I cannot say. The gilded girl definitely impacted me, and I think I imprinted on Connery pretty significantly as well, because when I re-encountered Bond in double-bill reissue forms in the 70s and then on ABC, he was just 'it' as Bond (though Dalton has since become nearly as much so, owing to how I can see him when rereading Fleming.)

I think OHMSS is a pretty terrific movie ... I just don't think it is James Bond up there, just some 'other fella' who could fill out the same sports coat.

Except for Barry, Adam and Meddings, haven't got much good to say about the Moore era, and except for maybe 20 minutes (Tosca and Russia) of QUANTUM, I don't think I've really enjoyed any Bond movie after LICENCE TO KILL. I pretty much hate the Craig era, and don't honestly see it as Bond at all ... more like they leveraged some Fleming and misappropriated it, putting it back up there but wholly lacking in context.

I'm a freelance writer on filmmaking, with a few hundred published credits, mostly cinematography and VFX articles. Those pieces are of the 'just the facts, ma'am' variety, so I don't get to flex many opinion muscles, which is what the forums are for in my case!

Good to see you back. Seems like the words of the moment right now.

trevanian wrote:

I pretty much hate the Craig era

We'll get on just fine, I think.

trevanian wrote:

...more like they leveraged some Fleming and misappropriated it, putting it back up there but wholly lacking in context.

This is a huge issue for me, particularly in the case of CR06. The basic plot points are hit but the essence of Fleming's novel is overlooked, the characterisation abused and the story bloated into something else... something ill-informed.

trevanian wrote:

Not sure if I count as a new member, as I haven't posted here in eight years (maybe because the site went down for a time?) Was trying to find a particular reference I had made about ACTION JACKSON years back and, lo&behold, the bondandbeyond site came up.

Anyway, seeing GOLDFINGER is my second memory in life (JFK funeral is the first), though why I was taken to see it before I even turned 4 I cannot say. The gilded girl definitely impacted me, and I think I imprinted on Connery pretty significantly as well, because when I re-encountered Bond in double-bill reissue forms in the 70s and then on ABC, he was just 'it' as Bond (though Dalton has since become nearly as much so, owing to how I can see him when rereading Fleming.)

I think OHMSS is a pretty terrific movie ... I just don't think it is James Bond up there, just some 'other fella' who could fill out the same sports coat.

Except for Barry, Adam and Meddings, haven't got much good to say about the Moore era, and except for maybe 20 minutes (Tosca and Russia) of QUANTUM, I don't think I've really enjoyed any Bond movie after LICENCE TO KILL. I pretty much hate the Craig era, and don't honestly see it as Bond at all ... more like they leveraged some Fleming and misappropriated it, putting it back up there but wholly lacking in context.

I'm a freelance writer on filmmaking, with a few hundred published credits, mostly cinematography and VFX articles. Those pieces are of the 'just the facts, ma'am' variety, so I don't get to flex many opinion  muscles, which is what the forums are for in my case!

How odd for a poster with almost 1400 posts to be "introducing" himself.


Then again, it has been eight years. The Internet is a very funny thing. At any rate, welcome back, and I hope you won't vanish for another decade.

As for the DC era, I love much of it and am ambivalent about the rest, but I don't intend to view NTtD because I will not subsidize and therefore endorse the direction I think Babs is about to take the series and perhaps already did with Craig's finale.

Well, it's reunion week. Good to see you back, trevanian.

Hello again, trev.

Right back at you folks. Kinda sad to see that Largo's Shark seems absent, and Python too.

But I'm thinking the 'this is what is so wrong with CR' essay I've been mumbling about writing up for the last 14 years (didn't see it till late-summer 07) might just come to fruition now.

I found some very old notes, plus I looked at old posts at various sites, and coupling these with some of my thoughts about the other three Craigs, I think there might be a grand unified essay that works to tie the Craig era together for me a way that is more integrated than anything the makers managed to do (outside of messing things up time and again -- still think the SPOOKS people should have been involved in writing this whole stretch of films, as they'd've at least grounded the things in something compelling that other people would have had to work hard at to screw up this badly.)

Only downside is that it means I have to watch NTTD. But then again, there'd always be an itch to scratch if I actually skipped a whole Bond movie, so I guess that's okay. They're putting this out on homevid early next year, right? That'll give me plenty of time to get this thing written up after my current batch of articles get all caught up this month.  

Oh yeah, I should probably chime in at length on the NTTD part of the site about my experience with UA PR on this film. Contacted them in January 2020 about a film editing story for CineMontage, a VFX story for VFX VOICE, and a cinematography story for Musicbed. Stayed in contact every month for 20 months, as they went roundy-round with their publicists and their stalls, and while they were telling me they weren't granting any interview, they were letting somebody else swoop in and interview everybody, killing one of those stories. Then a couple months back they told me that Linus was going to be completely unavailable for interviews. I thought that was strange, because I've interviewed him about other stuff and he liked the stories, so I sent him an email indicating I was sorry he was unavailable and maybe we'd talk about his next project, which also sounds fun. He wrote back saying he had never been contacted by UA PR about anything, that all of the interviews came through Eon.

So I've got no idea why UA PR was blowing smoke up my skirt for all those months, since I guess they had no intention of going forward with any of these stories. (believe me, this is the SHORT version of the story.) Between this and another film they totally flaked on with me a couple years back, I think UA PR is the only agency I will simply not deal with going forward ever again. This really burned a potentially excellent bridge with CineMontage, so I'm still seriously PO'd about it. (oh yeah, and even after I'd sent them a PDF of my QUANTUM stories and my SKYFALL story, they were still asking about my bona fides for covering the film. Felt like sending them a copy of my book proposal from 20 years back for an ART OF book concerning the film series, but realized they would probably get tired lips reading all those words.)

Sharky was having a look around yesterday I noticed, albeit without posting.

Good to see you 'round these parts, Trev.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Sharky was having a look around yesterday I noticed, albeit without posting.

Some sort of bait may be needed...

Didn't realise how embedded you are in the industry, trevanian. You've got my curiosity piqued with your CR06/Craig-era essay. Lately I've been reminded of how untouchable the Daniel Craig era is while so much of it fails to resonate with me. It's nice to know there are others out there with a similarly-considered analysis of the current tenure.

CJB wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Sharky was having a look around yesterday I noticed, albeit without posting.

Some sort of bait may be needed...

" />

Sharky? Here? Come in Sharky, come in Sharky.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Didn't realise how embedded you are in the industry, trevanian. You've got my curiosity piqued with your CR06/Craig-era essay. Lately I've been reminded of how untouchable the Daniel Craig era is while so much of it fails to resonate with me. It's nice to know there are others out there with a similarly-considered analysis of the current tenure.

CJB wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Sharky was having a look around yesterday I noticed, albeit without posting.

Some sort of bait may be needed...

[img]

'Golden Grotto sharks ... the most savage, the most dangerous'.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Didn't realise how embedded you are in the industry, trevanian. You've got my curiosity piqued with your CR06/Craig-era essay. Lately I've been reminded of how untouchable the Daniel Craig era is while so much of it fails to resonate with me. It's nice to know there are others out there with a similarly-considered analysis of the current tenure.  

My way in on all this predates the release of CR because I objected to Craig's casting strictly on looks alone, as I always felt he could have either been the thug in CR with his hand on Vesper's leg in the car or a post-chewed-up Felix Leiter, but that he was too goddamned ugly to be Bond, that it was like casting Jack Palance as 007. That was further cemented in mind because Palance actually expired around the time CR came out.

When I broke down and rented the movie many months later (2 for 1 night), I had worked myself up into thinking, 'okay, this guy is going to look wrong, but he's a solid actor and maybe they've got a good script.' That was where I was more wrong than ever, because my short take on CR's script is, 'this guy just goes around killing people for their cellphone data."

How credible is it that in a movie critics are adoring for how smart and real it is and saying it is a departure from the fantasy of Bonds past, the whole thing hinges on Bond acquiring information off a phone that a 'pro' would only ever keep in his head? This wouldn't be an issue if the movie was being reviewed like any other superficial entertaining Bond entry, but you can't be talking about acting and writing nominations for Bond and at the same time offering up the same old lunacies.

That cellphone business is what I always flash on about this film ... that, and how Craig looks so desperate and Don Knotts-like when he is trying to pick up Solange in front of the club. It reminded me a little of William Shatner hitting on Lisa Hartman on TJ HOOKER, except Shatner was at least trying to make light of the situation. And I gotta fault Campbell here, because he should have stayed there shooting till he got the guy looking confident for at least two seconds. I mean, Meyer spent something like fifty takes on Shatner just to get him tired enough to deliver 'here it comes' right in WRATH OF KHAN, and that was a 13 mil quickie feature produced under the aegis of Paramount's TV division. Not trying to keep bringing Shatner into the conversation, just happened that way (plus i remember being horrified hearing how much Craig wanted to play Captain Kirk a long ways back.)

Even with a few moments in QUANTUM at the opera and in Russia where I see glimmers of the right direction, they've never really righted the ship ... but then again, since I see it as one that had already crashed into the rocks, righting it probably shouldn't have been the concern.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Didn't realise how embedded you are in the industry, trevanian. You've got my curiosity piqued with your CR06/Craig-era essay. Lately I've been reminded of how untouchable the Daniel Craig era is while so much of it fails to resonate with me. It's nice to know there are others out there with a similarly-considered analysis of the current tenure.

CJB wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Sharky was having a look around yesterday I noticed, albeit without posting.

Some sort of bait may be needed...

[img]

'Golden Grotto sharks ... the most savage, the most dangerous'.

Golden Grotto sharks--heh--surely those don't even exist. Must have been invented for Bond. Perhaps our resident ichthyological expert could pop in and wise us up on the matter.

Nice to see more dissection of why the Craig films don't work for someone. Good to have you back Trevanian. Serious Bond analysis or writing is very, very rare to find.

I'm not surprised on the new PR as it's probably all under the Universal banner.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Didn't realise how embedded you are in the industry, trevanian. You've got my curiosity piqued with your CR06/Craig-era essay. Lately I've been reminded of how untouchable the Daniel Craig era is while so much of it fails to resonate with me. It's nice to know there are others out there with a similarly-considered analysis of the current tenure.

CJB wrote:

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Sharky was having a look around yesterday I noticed, albeit without posting.

Some sort of bait may be needed...

[img]

'Golden Grotto sharks ... the most savage, the most dangerous'.

Golden Grotto sharks--heh--surely those don't even exist. Must have been invented for Bond. Perhaps our resident ichthyological expert could pop in and wise us up on the matter.

Hehehe, indeed ... I'm no expert, but I've watched a fair amount of wildlife programming in my time and have never heard them mentioned outside of TB.

trevanian wrote:

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

Didn't realise how embedded you are in the industry, trevanian. You've got my curiosity piqued with your CR06/Craig-era essay. Lately I've been reminded of how untouchable the Daniel Craig era is while so much of it fails to resonate with me. It's nice to know there are others out there with a similarly-considered analysis of the current tenure.  

My way in on all this predates the release of CR because I objected to Craig's casting strictly on looks alone, as I always felt he could have either been the thug in CR with his hand on Vesper's leg in the car or a post-chewed-up Felix Leiter, but that he was too goddamned ugly to be Bond, that it was like casting Jack Palance as 007. That was further cemented in mind because Palance actually expired around the time CR came out.

When I broke down and rented the movie many months later (2 for 1 night), I had worked myself up into thinking, 'okay, this guy is going to look wrong, but he's a solid actor and maybe they've got a good script.' That was where I was more wrong than ever, because my short take on CR's script is, 'this guy just goes around killing people for their cellphone data."

Yeah. Craig may have made a good henchman, but he's no Bond-- even when there's sharp writing (SF) to support him.

trevanian wrote:

How credible is it that in a movie critics are adoring for how smart and real it is and saying it is a departure from the fantasy of Bonds past, the whole thing hinges on Bond acquiring information off a phone that a 'pro' would only ever keep in his head? This wouldn't be an issue if the movie was being reviewed like any other superficial entertaining Bond entry, but you can't be talking about acting and writing nominations for Bond and at the same time offering up the same old lunacies.

It's true. You've probably seen that youtube video of some fanboys breaking down how the parkour action defines Bond's character. It's just a shame that Eon get the character wrong.

trevanian wrote:

That cellphone business is what I always flash on about this film ... that, and how Craig looks so desperate and Don Knotts-like when he is trying to pick up Solange in front of the club. It reminded me a little of William Shatner hitting on Lisa Hartman on TJ HOOKER, except Shatner was at least trying to make light of the situation. And I gotta fault Campbell here, because he should have stayed there shooting till he got the guy looking confident for at least two seconds. I mean, Meyer spent something like fifty takes on Shatner just to get him tired enough to deliver 'here it comes' right in WRATH OF KHAN, and that was a 13 mil quickie feature produced under the aegis of Paramount's TV division. Not trying to keep bringing Shatner into the conversation, just happened that way (plus i remember being horrified hearing how much Craig wanted to play Captain Kirk a long ways back.)

Even with a few moments in QUANTUM at the opera and in Russia where I see glimmers of the right direction, they've never really righted the ship ... but then again, since I see it as one that had already crashed into the rocks, righting it probably shouldn't have been the concern.

His scenes with Solange also never sat right with me either. It's a combination of Craig's performance and the writing. Bond's flirting never felt so generic and none of it lands. I also find the scene with Solange on the floor to be trashy. And why does Bond look so bored?

Hello,people.
I am Phantom Commander, and I have been a Bond fan for over 40 years now. I love the old comic strips, the music, the films (especially the 60s output) and the books (Fleming).

I live in Scandinavia and enjoy reading, music, comics, films and learning about myself and the world. The past, the present and the future are all interesting subjects.

Now that a new era is on the horizon somewhere, I thought I would rewatch all the films again, and this could be the place to share some thoughts. I may post a ranking at the end of it. I am in no hurry so it could take a while. I have had a look around here, and you all seem like a smart and friendly bunch. I also like that it does not seem too crowded.  I shall explore the forum some more and get acquainted  with the functions. Look forward to chitchatting with you.

PC

Welcome aboard, Phantom. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the films. A different perspective is usually a good thing.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Welcome aboard, Phantom. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the films. A different perspective is usually a good thing.

Thank you, I look forward to seeing if my views change this time around myself. it has happened before.

Welcome. We'll pop another log on the fire and pour you a stiff one.

Welcome Phantom. I echo PK’s sentiments... though I'll definitely attempt to change your views if they’re sympathetic to Craig’s era.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Welcome. We'll pop another log on the fire and pour you a stiff one.

This may be too much for a Blunt Instrument to understand, but I appreciate the cozy welcome.

Mr Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, I am sorry to say that I have enjoyed the Craig era. With a so called "Bondathon" coming up later this year, it is open for re-evaluation. We will both find out eventually.