[Scarlett.]

imdb

I've done a little reading, apparently this film will be set in New York, and will introduce Moneypenny and Q

[Beastie]

Woo hoo. Love James Bond

Daniel Craig

[Ramsay]

james bond is really overated
it should of been stopped ages ago

[Beastie]

[rquote=2595350&tid=147873&author=kerplunk124]james bond is really overated
it should of been stopped ages ago[/rquote]

noooooo long live 007!

[setanta]

The last Bond film was terrible and Casino Royale is the most overrated Bond film of all but I'm still interested as to how Bourne or how Bond the next film will be. Turning him into a Jason Bourne replica was such a dumb move last time round. Hopefully they'll return some of his charm and wit but I'm still unsure about Daniel Craig in that kinda role. Great actor but not sure if he has the right charisma for the role.

[King Gizzard]

bring back classic james bond..as setanta as said its just copies of the bourne films now zZzZzZ

[Scarlett.]

What? Cause Bond isnt a machine who churns out endless gags?

I prefer a real person as Bond, also they are setting him up, he only just completed his first mission and is learning

[setanta]

[rquote=2596187&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie]What? Cause Bond isnt a machine who churns out endless gags?

I prefer a real person as Bond, also they are setting him up, he only just completed his first mission and is learning[/rquote]

I just hope they're setting him up to be more like Bond in future films but right now he's a dull copy of Bourne. Also worry if Craig has the right kinda humour and charisma for playing a more sophisticated and dashing Bond.

[Scarlett.]

[rquote=2596253&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596187&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie]What? Cause Bond isnt a machine who churns out endless gags?

I prefer a real person as Bond, also they are setting him up, he only just completed his first mission and is learning[/rquote]

I just hope they're setting him up to be more like Bond in future films but right now he's a dull copy of Bourne. Also worry if Craig has the right kinda humour and charisma for playing a more sophisticated and dashing Bond.[/rquote]

To be fair, I think it was more to do with QoS and CR being one story, in QoS, Bond had to appear cold after being betrayed by pretty much everyone, then by the end of Quantum of Solace, Bond moved on and was ready to start a new mission, I think we will eventually see the classic Bond seeping through, they said they wouldnt use lines like "Shaken not stirred" until they felt they set up Bond to be that sort of man

[MassiveTruck]

Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.

[Scarlett.]

[rquote=2596391&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck]Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.[/rquote]

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together

[MassiveTruck]

[rquote=2596402&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie][rquote=2596391&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck]Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.[/rquote]

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together[/rquote]

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.

[setanta]

[rquote=2596410&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2596402&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie][rquote=2596391&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck]Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.[/rquote]

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together[/rquote]

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.[/rquote]

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.

[MassiveTruck]

[rquote=2596424&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596410&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2596402&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie][rquote=2596391&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck]Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.[/rquote]

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together[/rquote]

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.[/rquote]

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.


[/rquote]


Bourne is just not surprising. It's like out of a comic book.

The military people are all wooden. They talk as they are wooden. It's like they were programmed on a calculator using the +, -, x and / signs.

Bourne has two levels to his personality. 1. Pondering and staring into the horizon. 2. Running around like he's high on coke.

Beyond that - you have a film. That's it.

The difference with Bond is you've got years and years of history. A legendary back story that owes to it's present state. Also the story is not as selfish and self involved as Bourne. Bourne is all about him. Who bloody cares. It's basically like watching a baby cry about his nappy being soiled. Bond has a more fundamental story relating to the premise.

On top of that, making Matt Damon the star in this is silly. He is a short stumpy man. An evolutionary reject that has as much chance of being a secret ops operative as one of the Mr.Men.

[Scarlett.]

Bond is a much better character than Bourne, especially his history (which I had to reseach once xD)

[setanta]

[rquote=2596447&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2596424&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596410&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2596402&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie][rquote=2596391&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck]Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.[/rquote]

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together[/rquote]

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.[/rquote]

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.


[/rquote]


Bourne is just not surprising. It's like out of a comic book.

The military people are all wooden. They talk as they are wooden.

Bourne has two levels to his personality. 1. Pondering and staring into the horizon. 2. Running around like he's high on coke.

Beyond that - you have a film. That's it.

The difference with Bond is you've got years and years of history. A legendary back story that owes to it's present state. Also the story is now as selfish and self involved as Bourne. Bourne is all about him. Who bloody cares. It's basically like watching a baby cry about his nappy being soiled. Bond has a more fundamental story relating to the premise.

On top of that, making Matt Damon the star in this is silly. He is a short stumpy man. An evolutionary reject that has as much chance of being a secret ops operative as one of the Mr.Men.[/rquote]

That's the whole idea of having or being a spy! They have to blend in and be almost invisible.... Matt Damon is perfect for the role of a lone assassin, inconspicuous and constantly on the alert.

Bond is the stuff of fantasy really..... saving the world nonsense while shagging the odd girl or 5. He has never had a place in the real world on film. Bourne is totally superior in that he uses his enviroment and skills to get himself outta tight situations. Watch the films again; he never uses ridiculous gadgets. Relies on his wits and intuition to save himself and learn the truth.

His is a totally selfless quest for the truth. I cannot believe that you can call him self-centred. Have you even watched the films?

[Scarlett.]

[rquote=2596479&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596447&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2596424&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596410&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2596402&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie][rquote=2596391&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck]Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.[/rquote]

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together[/rquote]

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.[/rquote]

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.


[/rquote]


Bourne is just not surprising. It's like out of a comic book.

The military people are all wooden. They talk as they are wooden.

Bourne has two levels to his personality. 1. Pondering and staring into the horizon. 2. Running around like he's high on coke.

Beyond that - you have a film. That's it.

The difference with Bond is you've got years and years of history. A legendary back story that owes to it's present state. Also the story is now as selfish and self involved as Bourne. Bourne is all about him. Who bloody cares. It's basically like watching a baby cry about his nappy being soiled. Bond has a more fundamental story relating to the premise.

On top of that, making Matt Damon the star in this is silly. He is a short stumpy man. An evolutionary reject that has as much chance of being a secret ops operative as one of the Mr.Men.[/rquote]

That's the whole idea of having or being a spy! They have to blend in and be almost invisible.... Matt Damon is perfect for the role of a lone assassin, inconspicuous and constantly on the alert.

Bond is the stuff of fantasy really..... saving the world nonsense while sh*****g the odd girl or 5. He has never had a place in the real world on film. Bourne is totally superior in that he uses his enviroment and skills to get himself outta tight situations. Watch the films again; he never uses ridiculous gadgets. Relies on his wits and intuition to save himself and learn the truth.

His is a totally selfless quest for the truth. I cannot believe that you can call him self-centred. Have you even watched the films?
[/rquote]

Ummmm, the new Bond used hardly any gadgets, and he hardly slept with 5 or more girls, especially seing as he left MI7 for Vesper in Casino Royale

[setanta]

[rquote=2596484&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie][rquote=2596479&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596447&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2596424&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596410&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2596402&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie][rquote=2596391&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck]Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.[/rquote]

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together[/rquote]

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.[/rquote]

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.


[/rquote]


Bourne is just not surprising. It's like out of a comic book.

The military people are all wooden. They talk as they are wooden.

Bourne has two levels to his personality. 1. Pondering and staring into the horizon. 2. Running around like he's high on coke.

Beyond that - you have a film. That's it.

The difference with Bond is you've got years and years of history. A legendary back story that owes to it's present state. Also the story is now as selfish and self involved as Bourne. Bourne is all about him. Who bloody cares. It's basically like watching a baby cry about his nappy being soiled. Bond has a more fundamental story relating to the premise.

On top of that, making Matt Damon the star in this is silly. He is a short stumpy man. An evolutionary reject that has as much chance of being a secret ops operative as one of the Mr.Men.[/rquote]

That's the whole idea of having or being a spy! They have to blend in and be almost invisible.... Matt Damon is perfect for the role of a lone assassin, inconspicuous and constantly on the alert.

Bond is the stuff of fantasy really..... saving the world nonsense while sh*****g the odd girl or 5. He has never had a place in the real world on film. Bourne is totally superior in that he uses his enviroment and skills to get himself outta tight situations. Watch the films again; he never uses ridiculous gadgets. Relies on his wits and intuition to save himself and learn the truth.

His is a totally selfless quest for the truth. I cannot believe that you can call him self-centred. Have you even watched the films?
[/rquote]

Ummmm, the new Bond used hardly any gadgets, and he hardly slept with 5 or more girls, especially seing as he left MI7 for Vesper in Casino Royale[/rquote]

Yes, because they're trying to turn him into a Bourne knockoff. Don't you see that? But still they have to have a ridiculous amount of crash bang wallop at the end with pointless explosions. With Bond you really don't care about what's going to happen cuz they've shattered your suspension of disbelief well before the final few minutes.

Compare the plight of Bourne in the Bourne Supremacy to Bond in Quantum of Solace. There's really no comparison in terms of character development or levels of emotion within the final scenes of both films.

[Scarlett.]

[rquote=2596499&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596484&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie][rquote=2596479&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596447&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2596424&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596410&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2596402&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie][rquote=2596391&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck]Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.[/rquote]

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together[/rquote]

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.[/rquote]

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.


[/rquote]


Bourne is just not surprising. It's like out of a comic book.

The military people are all wooden. They talk as they are wooden.

Bourne has two levels to his personality. 1. Pondering and staring into the horizon. 2. Running around like he's high on coke.

Beyond that - you have a film. That's it.

The difference with Bond is you've got years and years of history. A legendary back story that owes to it's present state. Also the story is now as selfish and self involved as Bourne. Bourne is all about him. Who bloody cares. It's basically like watching a baby cry about his nappy being soiled. Bond has a more fundamental story relating to the premise.

On top of that, making Matt Damon the star in this is silly. He is a short stumpy man. An evolutionary reject that has as much chance of being a secret ops operative as one of the Mr.Men.[/rquote]

That's the whole idea of having or being a spy! They have to blend in and be almost invisible.... Matt Damon is perfect for the role of a lone assassin, inconspicuous and constantly on the alert.

Bond is the stuff of fantasy really..... saving the world nonsense while sh*****g the odd girl or 5. He has never had a place in the real world on film. Bourne is totally superior in that he uses his enviroment and skills to get himself outta tight situations. Watch the films again; he never uses ridiculous gadgets. Relies on his wits and intuition to save himself and learn the truth.

His is a totally selfless quest for the truth. I cannot believe that you can call him self-centred. Have you even watched the films?
[/rquote]

Ummmm, the new Bond used hardly any gadgets, and he hardly slept with 5 or more girls, especially seing as he left MI7 for Vesper in Casino Royale[/rquote]

Yes, because they're trying to turn him into a Bourne knockoff. Don't you see that? But still they have to have a ridiculous amount of crash bang wallop at the end with pointless explosions. With Bond you really don't care about what's going to happen cuz they've shattered your suspension of disbelief well before the final few minutes.

Compare the plight of Bourne in the Bourne Supremacy to Bond in Quantum of Solace. There's really no comparison in terms of character development or levels of emotion within the final scenes of both films. [/rquote]

Bourne: American agent(?) who has lost his memory
Bond: Newly promoted MI7 00 agent

I dont really see the comparison you are making, its like

Donald Duck: Disney duck
Tom the cat: Jerrythe mouses enemy

[setanta]

[rquote=2596508&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie][rquote=2596499&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596484&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie][rquote=2596479&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596447&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2596424&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596410&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck][rquote=2596402&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie][rquote=2596391&tid=147873&author=MassiveTruck]Bourne is rubbish. A short stumpy man trying be all hard and tough. It's a bit unbelievable for me.

I can believe Bond. Rugged man with a past.

Bourne has just been running around for ages crying oh woe is me, help me, oh no, I lost my memory, they used me.

Oh grow up you pathetic midget. I fell asleep during the 2nd and 3rd films and was wondering for days what the fuss was about the first one.

Now James Bond is far better. Granted Quantum of Solace wasn't that great but Casino Royale was outstanding. Hopefully we're back to form again.[/rquote]

I thought Quantum was awesome, it made up for Casino's lack of action, as part 1 and part 2, they work well together[/rquote]

I didn't really see it as a part 2. I just thought they intentionally made it progressive to make it less episodic like the previous bonds and give it more a serialisation.

Still better than Bourne. That just bores me to death. It borrows from so many other different genres that it's hardly it's own film.[/rquote]

Bourne are superior thrillers in every way imaginable really. Why do you think they decided to make an inferior copy of them with Quantum of Solace? It was really rubbish.


[/rquote]


Bourne is just not surprising. It's like out of a comic book.

The military people are all wooden. They talk as they are wooden.

Bourne has two levels to his personality. 1. Pondering and staring into the horizon. 2. Running around like he's high on coke.

Beyond that - you have a film. That's it.

The difference with Bond is you've got years and years of history. A legendary back story that owes to it's present state. Also the story is now as selfish and self involved as Bourne. Bourne is all about him. Who bloody cares. It's basically like watching a baby cry about his nappy being soiled. Bond has a more fundamental story relating to the premise.

On top of that, making Matt Damon the star in this is silly. He is a short stumpy man. An evolutionary reject that has as much chance of being a secret ops operative as one of the Mr.Men.[/rquote]

That's the whole idea of having or being a spy! They have to blend in and be almost invisible.... Matt Damon is perfect for the role of a lone assassin, inconspicuous and constantly on the alert.

Bond is the stuff of fantasy really..... saving the world nonsense while sh*****g the odd girl or 5. He has never had a place in the real world on film. Bourne is totally superior in that he uses his enviroment and skills to get himself outta tight situations. Watch the films again; he never uses ridiculous gadgets. Relies on his wits and intuition to save himself and learn the truth.

His is a totally selfless quest for the truth. I cannot believe that you can call him self-centred. Have you even watched the films?
[/rquote]

Ummmm, the new Bond used hardly any gadgets, and he hardly slept with 5 or more girls, especially seing as he left MI7 for Vesper in Casino Royale[/rquote]

Yes, because they're trying to turn him into a Bourne knockoff. Don't you see that? But still they have to have a ridiculous amount of crash bang wallop at the end with pointless explosions. With Bond you really don't care about what's going to happen cuz they've shattered your suspension of disbelief well before the final few minutes.

Compare the plight of Bourne in the Bourne Supremacy to Bond in Quantum of Solace. There's really no comparison in terms of character development or levels of emotion within the final scenes of both films. [/rquote]

Bourne: American agent(?) who has lost his memory
Bond: Newly promoted MI7 00 agent

I dont really see the comparison you are making, its like

Donald Duck: Disney duck
Tom the cat: Jerrythe mouses enemy [/rquote]

The producers made the comparison by turning him into a Bourne type assassin. Totally intentional because they've seen how successful the Bourne franchise has become. The Brocoli family are very very dull producers. Get Tarantino to a direct a Bond film with Pierce Brosnan and then we'll have some fun.

[Scarlett.]

Pierce? he isnt even English

Craig is much better, and I prefer him, he reminds me of the early original Bond, Sean Connery

[setanta]

[rquote=2596536&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie]Pierce? he isnt even English

Craig is much better, and I prefer him, he reminds me of the early original Bond, Sean Connery[/rquote]

Tarantino wanted to direct a Bond film, but only if Brosnan was in the lead role. Would have been great fun. Sure the best Bonds in my eyes weren't English- Connery and Dalton.

[Scarlett.]

[rquote=2596546&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596536&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie]Pierce? he isnt even English

Craig is much better, and I prefer him, he reminds me of the early original Bond, Sean Connery[/rquote]

Tarantino wanted to direct a Bond film, but only if Brosnan was in the lead role. Would have been great fun. Sure the best Bonds in my eyes weren't English- Connery and Dalton.[/rquote]I dont mind Connery being Bond, cause at least he wasnt Canadian or American

I was appaled to find Burt Reynolds was once considered as Bond

[setanta]

[rquote=2596553&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie][rquote=2596546&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596536&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie]Pierce? he isnt even English

Craig is much better, and I prefer him, he reminds me of the early original Bond, Sean Connery[/rquote]

Tarantino wanted to direct a Bond film, but only if Brosnan was in the lead role. Would have been great fun. Sure the best Bonds in my eyes weren't English- Connery and Dalton.[/rquote]I dont mind Connery being Bond, cause at least he wasnt Canadian or American

I was appaled to find Burt Reynolds was once considered as Bond

[/rquote]

Watch Dalton in Living Daylights. Closest thing to the Bond of the books.

[Scarlett.]

[rquote=2596557&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596553&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie][rquote=2596546&tid=147873&author=setanta][rquote=2596536&tid=147873&author=Mr.Corrie]Pierce? he isnt even English

Craig is much better, and I prefer him, he reminds me of the early original Bond, Sean Connery[/rquote]

Tarantino wanted to direct a Bond film, but only if Brosnan was in the lead role. Would have been great fun. Sure the best Bonds in my eyes weren't English- Connery and Dalton.[/rquote]I dont mind Connery being Bond, cause at least he wasnt Canadian or American

I was appaled to find Burt Reynolds was once considered as Bond

[/rquote]

Watch Dalton in Living Daylights. Closest thing to the Bond of the books.[/rquote]Wasnt that Dalton's only film? I didnt mind him either, he was a good actor

Anyway, lets just say, I like Craig's Bond, he seems like a person again, unlike Pierce's rendition