zOwie Omega Discussion Forum

Sorry I missed the first go-rounds on this thread. I was on a submarine....

As some of you know, I am a die-hard Bond film guy, and I follow 007 productions whether there's actually a film "IN" production or not. I reacted to all that silliness surrounding Halle getting her own Jinx franchise, which I never thought was anything but crap. (Much as I like her as an actress, thought she stunk in "Die Another Day," and felt like the production team lost sight of itself w/ the Oscar win -- much better to have ended the last film w/ Bond and Monneypenny, if they were looking for real character growth and mystique.)

Connery and the producers' dad got into it and he was replaced w/ a remarkably good guy in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," despite their bringing Connery back for the next one after that. So there's always been a history of insecurity where the Bond actors are concerned. I doubt money was really the issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if Brosnan's politics got him into trouble (gratuitously pro-Kerry, playing golf w/ Clinton). Regardless of your political view, it's not the Bond franchise demographic.

And why these people insist on telling me how to think politically anyway is beyond me.

So, that's the opening. I've also written in other threads here about the producers' desires to get "Casino Royale" into their franchise, and that opportunity is here under Sony. Probably doesn't hurt that retros have done well (eg, "Apollo 13," wink to my c321 Speedy friends; and "Titanic." I have no idea how they plan to deal w/ the character "introduction," but I will say that if its truly to "go back in time," they are on the wrong DeLorean. The "character" is too established. Any sense of danger is truly minimized.

Then there is the "character development" thing. Torture scenes such as they were in "Die Another Day" were tough enough to go through. But here, w/ Craig, they have a dispensible guy (they all are on their first films), and a guy w/ whom we can't empathize. Gotta say Brosnan would have been the better way to go on that. I wasn't terribly worried about Timothy Dalton being damaged in any way in either of his films, as I just never cared for him -- so I empathized w/ trashing him, even as part of the plot.

Altho I always saw Brosnan as Bond in "Remington Steele," I know that many did not. Indeed, he was "too pretty," they said. My goodness: Look at early Moore films and you'd feel the same of him. So, the "James BLond" thing w/ Craig doesn't worry me. The press hates Bond. In my opinion, if it wasn't that, it would have been something else....

If it gets out of hand, my money is that they'll die his hair.

Of greater concern to me is the director, the same one who did the very bad, "Goldeneye." Again, my assessment is that "Goldeneye" did well because people wanted Brosnan.

In terms of Omega Ambassadors, Craig has a reputation which does not serve us well. Minimally, it is limited. Brosnan could do DeVille as easily as Seamaster. But maybe Omega is planning a "Jackhammer" line, in which case, all bets are off.

Regardless, as I've written before, I believe that the Omega deal for the next Bond film has already been signed. It's a money thing, and I doubt anyone in production cares much beyond that.

Okay, back to me on the submarine: It was the USS Silversides, decommissioned, and permanently residing in Muskegon, Michigan. I was there for a Cub Scout overnight. And you better believe I was wearing my 2531.80 Seamaster.

And to that I'd like to add, sapphire crystal and durability can only be appreciated in a place where hatches, hallways, and hanging instrumentation is constantly being hit, bumped, or run across w/ every vulnerable part of you.

But not a bit of it got to my rugged SMP!