Everything Larry and David Ellison Will Control if Paramount Buys Warner Bros.
Everything Larry and David Ellison Will Control
if Paramount Buys Warner Bros.
-----------------------------------------------
Paramount Skydance's sprawling media empire will get a major
boost if the deal gets approved.
On Feb 27, 2026 at 4:36:42 PM PST, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:Nice projection. Too bad its been used so often it is yawn-inspiring.
Everything Larry and David Ellison Will Control
if Paramount Buys Warner Bros.
-----------------------------------------------
Paramount Skydance's sprawling media empire will get a major
boost if the deal gets approved.
Conservative Oracle founder Larry Ellison dropped $110 billion to have >Paramount-Skydance devour Warner Bros. Discovery whole.
CNN? HBO? CBS? All ours now. MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Showtime, TNT, >TBS, Adult Swim, Paramount+, Warner Bros. Studios, the DC and Harry Potter >universes... the entire propaganda hydra just got choked out and rebranded >under conservative control.
Netflix tried to play savior but they folded.
For decades the leftist cultists treated the media like their personal >prefrontal cortex, pumping out leftist propaganda 24/7, manufacturing consent >for open borders, aborting babies, groomer policies in schools, hug-a-thug >crime policies, mutilating children in the name of transformer ideology, and >every flavor of degeneracy that keeps their dopamine-starved base seething and >voting blue.
That was their only real power. Not ideas. Not truth. Just narrative control. >The 4AM talking points. The gaslighting machine. The slow-drip poison that >convinced half the country black was white and men could get pregnant.Nice projection. Too bad its been used so often it is yawn-inspiring.
The exorcism has begun.That's OK, it'll be Fox's turn soon.
One of the comments I saw on the exTwitters to a BSNOW talking head bemoaning >the loss of their cultural hegemony was as hilarious as it was crude:
"Karma isn't just a whore. SheAs a blood-soaked hellbitch with a 12-inch >strap-on and zero lube, and she's balls-deep in the collective asshole of >every blue-check leftist propagandist who thought they'd own the culture >forever."
On Feb 27, 2026 at 4:36:42 PM PST, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Everything Larry and David Ellison Will Control
if Paramount Buys Warner Bros.
-----------------------------------------------
Paramount Skydance's sprawling media empire will get a major
boost if the deal gets approved.
Conservative Oracle founder Larry Ellison
dropped $110 billion to have
Paramount-Skydance devour Warner Bros. Discovery whole.
CNN? HBO? CBS? All ours
now. MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, Showtime, TNT,
TBS, Adult Swim, Paramount+, Warner Bros. Studios, the DC and Harry Potter universes... the entire propaganda hydra just got choked out and rebranded under conservative control.
Netflix tried to play savior but they folded.
For decades the leftist cultists treated the media like their personal prefrontal cortex, pumping out leftist propaganda 24/7, manufacturing consent for open borders, aborting babies, groomer policies in schools, hug-a-thug crime policies, mutilating children in the name of transformer ideology, and every flavor of degeneracy that keeps their dopamine-starved base seething and
voting blue.
That was their only real power. Not ideas. Not truth. Just narrative control. The 4AM talking points. The gaslighting machine. The slow-drip poison that convinced half the country black was white and men could get pregnant.
The exorcism has begun.
One of the comments I saw on the exTwitters to a BSNOW talking head bemoaning the loss of their cultural hegemony was as hilarious as it was crude:
"Karma isn't just a whore. SherCOs a blood-soaked hellbitch with a 12-inch strap-on and zero lube, and she's balls-deep in the collective asshole of every blue-check leftist propagandist who thought they'd own the culture forever."
On Feb 27, 2026 at 4:36:42 PM PST, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Everything Larry and David Ellison Will Control
if Paramount Buys Warner Bros.
-----------------------------------------------
Paramount Skydance's sprawling media empire will get a major
boost if the deal gets approved.
Conservative Oracle founder Larry Ellison dropped $110 billion to have >Paramount-Skydance devour Warner Bros. Discovery whole.
It's rumored Musk also used Arab money for buying twitter
rather than just his own money for massive financial
rewards to the crooked former management of Twitter.
Oh, you tricked me into saying "Arab", when I'm assuming
you mean Saudi Arabia, run by a family who are puppets
of Israel.
On 2/28/26 1:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
"Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Everything Larry and David Ellison Will Control
if Paramount Buys Warner Bros.
-----------------------------------------------
Paramount Skydance's sprawling media empire will get a major
boost if the deal gets approved.
Conservative Oracle founder Larry Ellison
Who care's if he's a Conservative? All Jews are on the same side.
In article <10nvlrn$3m304$2@dont-email.me>, atropos@mac.com wrote:
On Feb 27, 2026 at 4:36:42 PM PST, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>
Everything Larry and David Ellison Will Control
if Paramount Buys Warner Bros.
-----------------------------------------------
Paramount Skydance's sprawling media empire will get a major
boost if the deal gets approved.
Conservative Oracle founder Larry Ellison dropped $110 billion to have
Paramount-Skydance devour Warner Bros. Discovery whole.
He's conservative? Didn't he buy the 007 franchise from the Brocolli
widow, only to remove the gun from all Bond posterwork and announce
the next Bond movie will have a "Bond They/Them"?
In article <10nvlrn$3m304$2@dont-email.me>, atropos@mac.com wrote:
On Feb 27, 2026 at 4:36:42 PM PST, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote: >>
Everything Larry and David Ellison Will Control
if Paramount Buys Warner Bros.
-----------------------------------------------
Paramount Skydance's sprawling media empire will get a major
boost if the deal gets approved.
Conservative Oracle founder Larry Ellison dropped $110 billion to have
Paramount-Skydance devour Warner Bros. Discovery whole.
He's conservative? Didn't he buy the 007 franchise from the Brocolli
widow, only to remove the gun from all Bond posterwork and announce
the next Bond movie will have a "Bond They/Them"?
On 3/7/2026 10:59 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <10nvlrn$3m304$2@dont-email.me>, atropos@mac.com wrote:
"Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Everything Larry and David Ellison Will Control
if Paramount Buys Warner Bros.
-----------------------------------------------
Paramount Skydance's sprawling media empire will get a major
boost if the deal gets approved.
Conservative Oracle founder Larry Ellison dropped $110 billion to have
Paramount-Skydance devour Warner Bros. Discovery whole.
He's conservative? Didn't he buy the 007 franchise from the Brocolli
widow, only to remove the gun from all Bond posterwork and announce
the next Bond movie will have a "Bond They/Them"?
All the discussion that I've seen about who the next Bond will be have
been about male actors.
In article <10okem0$2j96d$1@dont-email.me>, dtravel@sonic.net wrote:
On 3/7/2026 10:59 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <10nvlrn$3m304$2@dont-email.me>, atropos@mac.com wrote:
"Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Everything Larry and David Ellison Will Control
if Paramount Buys Warner Bros.
-----------------------------------------------
Paramount Skydance's sprawling media empire will get a major
boost if the deal gets approved.
Conservative Oracle founder Larry Ellison dropped $110 billion to have >>>> Paramount-Skydance devour Warner Bros. Discovery whole.
He's conservative? Didn't he buy the 007 franchise from the Brocolli
widow, only to remove the gun from all Bond posterwork and announce
the next Bond movie will have a "Bond They/Them"?
All the discussion that I've seen about who the next Bond will be have
been about male actors.
I remember them floating the idea of Bond being a black guy but
I thought someone tried to float the idea of a Jane Bond.
On 3/8/2026 5:00 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <10okem0$2j96d$1@dont-email.me>, dtravel@sonic.net wrote:I honestly don't see a problem with a Black Bond.
On 3/7/2026 10:59 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <10nvlrn$3m304$2@dont-email.me>, atropos@mac.com wrote:
"Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Everything Larry and David Ellison Will Control
if Paramount Buys Warner Bros.
-----------------------------------------------
Paramount Skydance's sprawling media empire will get a major >>>>>> boost if the deal gets approved.
Conservative Oracle founder Larry Ellison dropped $110 billion to have >>>>> Paramount-Skydance devour Warner Bros. Discovery whole.
He's conservative? Didn't he buy the 007 franchise from the Brocolli
widow, only to remove the gun from all Bond posterwork and announce
the next Bond movie will have a "Bond They/Them"?
All the discussion that I've seen about who the next Bond will be have
been about male actors.
I remember them floating the idea of Bond being a black guy but
I thought someone tried to float the idea of a Jane Bond.
On 3/8/2026 5:00 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <10okem0$2j96d$1@dont-email.me>, dtravel@sonic.net wrote:
On 3/7/2026 10:59 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <10nvlrn$3m304$2@dont-email.me>, atropos@mac.com wrote:
"Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Everything Larry and David Ellison Will Control
if Paramount Buys Warner Bros.
-----------------------------------------------
Paramount Skydance's sprawling media empire will get a major
boost if the deal gets approved.
Conservative Oracle founder Larry Ellison dropped $110 billion to have >>>>> Paramount-Skydance devour Warner Bros. Discovery whole.
He's conservative? Didn't he buy the 007 franchise from the Brocolli
widow, only to remove the gun from all Bond posterwork and announce
the next Bond movie will have a "Bond They/Them"?
All the discussion that I've seen about who the next Bond will be have
been about male actors.
I remember them floating the idea of Bond being a black guy but
I thought someone tried to float the idea of a Jane Bond.
I honestly don't see a problem with a Black Bond.
On 3/8/2026 5:00 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <10okem0$2j96d$1@dont-email.me>, dtravel@sonic.net wrote:I honestly don't see a problem with a Black Bond.
On 3/7/2026 10:59 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <10nvlrn$3m304$2@dont-email.me>, atropos@mac.com wrote:
"Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Everything Larry and David Ellison Will Control
if Paramount Buys Warner Bros.
-----------------------------------------------
Paramount Skydance's sprawling media empire will get a major >>>>>> boost if the deal gets approved.
Conservative Oracle founder Larry Ellison dropped $110 billion to have >>>>> Paramount-Skydance devour Warner Bros. Discovery whole.
He's conservative? Didn't he buy the 007 franchise from the Brocolli
widow, only to remove the gun from all Bond posterwork and announce
the next Bond movie will have a "Bond They/Them"?
All the discussion that I've seen about who the next Bond will be have
been about male actors.
I remember them floating the idea of Bond being a black guy but
I thought someone tried to float the idea of a Jane Bond.
Then you must not have a problem with a white Shaft or a white Black
Panther.
did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:
Then you must not have a problem with a white Shaft or a white Black >>Panther.
There's a theory that "James Bond" is not a person but a code name for >whoever's the top agent at the time. Among other things, this explains
how Sean Connery was able to return to the role after Roger Moore had
taken it, with Moore then taking over again. They weren't playing the
same character; they were two different agents using the name at
different times.
For those who believe that theory, a black Bond wouldn't be a problem.
1) Sean Connery fails to notice that the plot is awfully familiar as
it's a remake
2) Roger Moore, in For Your Eyes Only, returns the same Maguffin stolen
by the girl then given to Sean Connery in From Russia With Love
3) George Lazenby, Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and Timothy Dalton were
all married to the same Tracy. I cannot recall if any of the four
Remington Steele movies referenced Tracy. Daniel Craig had later
references to Vesper.
4) Were Blofeld and Leiter also different characters using the same
name, given that they were repeatedly recast, with the exception for the
same Leiter being used in two different movies? M also got recast, which
was supposed to be the same M. Judy Dench is a different character. Moneypenny got recast.
In article <10okem0$2j96d$1@dont-email.me>, dtravel@sonic.net wrote:My vote would be to retitle the series "007" and keep the 007 from the
On 3/7/2026 10:59 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <10nvlrn$3m304$2@dont-email.me>, atropos@mac.com wrote:
"Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Everything Larry and David Ellison Will Control
if Paramount Buys Warner Bros.
-----------------------------------------------
Paramount Skydance's sprawling media empire will get a major
boost if the deal gets approved.
Conservative Oracle founder Larry Ellison dropped $110 billion to have >>>> Paramount-Skydance devour Warner Bros. Discovery whole.
He's conservative? Didn't he buy the 007 franchise from the Brocolli
widow, only to remove the gun from all Bond posterwork and announce
the next Bond movie will have a "Bond They/Them"?
All the discussion that I've seen about who the next Bond will be have >>been about male actors.
I remember them floating the idea of Bond being a black guy but
I thought someone tried to float the idea of a Jane Bond.
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:Now there you've got me.
did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:
Then you must not have a problem with a white Shaft or a white Black >>>Panther.
There's a theory that "James Bond" is not a person but a code name for >>whoever's the top agent at the time. Among other things, this explains
how Sean Connery was able to return to the role after Roger Moore had >>taken it, with Moore then taking over again. They weren't playing the
same character; they were two different agents using the name at
different times.
For those who believe that theory, a black Bond wouldn't be a problem.
Those people cannot handwave away that
1) Sean Connery fails to notice that the plot is awfully familiar as
it's a remake
2) Roger Moore, in For Your Eyes Only, returns the same Maguffin stolenThe same /sort/ of maguffin but not the same one.
by the girl then given to Sean Connery in From Russia With Love
3) George Lazenby, Sean Connery, Roger Moore, and Timothy Dalton wereAnother excellent point: they cannot be different people under the
all married to the same Tracy. I cannot recall if any of the four
Remington Steele movies referenced Tracy. Daniel Craig had later
references to Vesper.
4) Were Blofeld and Leiter also different characters using the sameWhoever played Blofeld was deliberately kept secret in the end titles
name, given that they were repeatedly recast, with the exception for the
same Leiter being used in two different movies? M also got recast, which
was supposed to be the same M. Judy Dench is a different character. >Moneypenny got recast.
Blofeld's cat, not a character in the novels, was also recast.Cats also age out..
5) Given that a dozen or so actors had prominent supporting roles playing >different characters in various movies, are those somehow supposed to beAnother good point. And not just supporting roles: the British
the same character using different aliases?
6) The theory accomplishes nothing for MI-6. Also, Bond is a ridiculousThis is because, as the newspapers once were in the habit of saying
spy given that every casino and fine hotel in Europe knows who he is.
The only support for that theory is the self-deprecating joke LazenbyAnd that was understood (at least by me) to be the actor's comment on
makes when Diana Rigg doesn't immediately get dissuaded from her suicide >attempt upon encountering Bond. "That never happened to the other
fellow." Also, it's the plot of Casino Royale (1967).
I would also argue that Connery's Bond is almost a new character in >Goldfinger. He wore pastels! But Dalton returned to the way ConneryI'm not sure pastels make a character "new".
played Bond in Dr No.
Those people aren't true Bond fans. We accept that Bond movies lack >explanation and continuity, what little there was in the novels, gets >destroyed when the movies were out of sequence. Somehow Bond andQuite right. Even to accepting the Craig Bond. I'm not sure I want to
Blofeld, both recast, hadn't met in On Her Majesty's Secret
Service. Bond is supposed to be perpetually in his mid 30s. The later
novels dropped his WWII navy service. We accept that Craig's Bond is
earlier in "continuity" than the rest of them, despite each movie being
set contemporarily.
On Mon, 9 Mar 2026 12:32:25 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
There's a theory that "James Bond" is not a person but a code name for=20 >>>whoever's the top agent at the time. Among other things, this explains=20 >>>how Sean Connery was able to return to the role after Roger Moore had=20 >>>taken it, with Moore then taking over again. They weren't playing the=20 >>>same character; they were two different agents using the name at=20 >>>different times.
For those who believe that theory, a black Bond wouldn't be a problem.
Those people cannot handwave away that
1) Sean Connery fails to notice that the plot is awfully familiar as
it's a remake
Now there you've got me.
But it was a very good remake!
2) Roger Moore, in For Your Eyes Only, returns the same Maguffin stolen
by the girl then given to Sean Connery in From Russia With Love
The same /sort/ of maguffin but not the same one.
One was a Russian Lektor, the other a British ATAC
. . .
The first Leiter went on to star in "Hawaii 5-0". From then it was, as
you say, a mish-mash.
Moneypenny aged out -- unless leaving was the actress' own idea, this
is an example of preferring young actresses to older ones.
Of course,
the new Bond was younger than the old Bond, so it made a sort of
sense. IIRC, one of the reasons /Hush ... Hush Sweet Charlotte/ was so >popular is precisely because it featured actors of the feminine
persuasion who had not been seen on screen in a long long time due to
their age. Of course, being a very scary film helped as well.
Blofeld's cat, not a character in the novels, was also recast.
Cats also age out..
6) The theory accomplishes nothing for MI-6. Also, Bond is a ridiculous
spy given that every casino and fine hotel in Europe knows who he is.
This is because, as the newspapers once were in the habit of saying
when each and every James Bond film came out, he is not a spy. He is a >cleaner. And he cleans down to the very nap, if not beyond.
Alternate answer: his reputation as a playboy is useful cover.
The only support for that theory is the self-deprecating joke Lazenby
makes when Diana Rigg doesn't immediately get dissuaded from her suicide >>attempt upon encountering Bond. "That never happened to the other
fellow." Also, it's the plot of Casino Royale (1967).
And that was understood (at least by me) to be the actor's comment on >replacing Connery.
I would also argue that Connery's Bond is almost a new character in >>Goldfinger. He wore pastels! But Dalton returned to the way Connery
played Bond in Dr No.
I'm not sure pastels make a character "new".
But not caring whether his martinis are shaken or stirred.
Those people aren't true Bond fans. We accept that Bond movies lack >>explanation and continuity, what little there was in the novels, gets >>destroyed when the movies were out of sequence. Somehow Bond and
Blofeld, both recast, hadn't met in On Her Majesty's Secret
Service. Bond is supposed to be perpetually in his mid 30s. The later >>novels dropped his WWII navy service. We accept that Craig's Bond is >>earlier in "continuity" than the rest of them, despite each movie being
set contemporarily.
Quite right. Even to accepting the Craig Bond. I'm not sure I want to
see the Reboot Bonds again but, since I am working my way through the
James Bond series at the putative rate of one every six days, and >/Goldfinger/ is next, it will be a while before I make a final
decision about those.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2026 12:32:25 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Blofeld's cat, not a character in the novels, was also recast.
Cats also age out..
Nah. Like Jack Lord, the cat demanded too much money.
Mon, 9 Mar 2026 22:20:54 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
Mon, 9 Mar 2026 12:32:25 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>>The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
There's a theory that "James Bond" is not a person but a code name for >>>>>whoever's the top agent at the time. Among other things, this explains >>>>>how Sean Connery was able to return to the role after Roger Moore had >>>>>taken it, with Moore then taking over again. They weren't playing the >>>>>same character; they were two different agents using the name at >>>>>different times.
For those who believe that theory, a black Bond wouldn't be a problem.
Those people cannot handwave away that
1) Sean Connery fails to notice that the plot is awfully familiar as >>>>it's a remake
Now there you've got me.
But it was a very good remake!
2) Roger Moore, in For Your Eyes Only, returns the same Maguffin stolen >>>>by the girl then given to Sean Connery in From Russia With Love
The same /sort/ of maguffin but not the same one.
One was a Russian Lektor, the other a British ATAC
Technically, that's correct, but For Your Eyes Only was a deliberate
call back to From Russia With Love, the novel which was literally Cold
War and the Russians were the enemies. In the movie, Blofeld and SPECTRE >>were added. Yet again, the studio didn't have the cash to make a movie
as hideously expensive as Moonraker and they wanted to get away from all >>the excesses. Except for the parrot, it's a great movie. The director >>forced Roger Moore to ACT, which he did too little of in his career.
Yes, SPECTRE and so Blofeld were introduced in the film /Dr. No/.
In the books, Bond is still a target of SMERSH and SPECTRE lies in his >future. But otherwise the film of /For Your Eyes Only/ is quite close
to the book.
I saw /For Your Eyes Only/ in German when it came out. They dubbed the >parrot. In this case, there was no "book". Instead, they used two
short stories ("For Your Eyes Only", Bond taking revenge for M, and
"Risico", about two smugglers, one of which is working for the
Russians). As I am sure you know. I consider this to be arguably the
best adaptation of two short stories, at least among the James Bond
films.
. . .
6) The theory accomplishes nothing for MI-6. Also, Bond is a ridiculous >>>>spy given that every casino and fine hotel in Europe knows who he is.
This is because, as the newspapers once were in the habit of saying
when each and every James Bond film came out, he is not a spy. He is a >>>cleaner. And he cleans down to the very nap, if not beyond.
The character is meant to be cinematic, not realistic.
Hey, you're the one that called him "ridiculous". I'm just pointing
out that this isn't necessarily so.
Alternate answer: his reputation as a playboy is useful cover.
Planting his Playboy Club membership card on the henchman (with whom he
had one of the best cinematic fight scenes of all times) he had just
killed was a plot point in Diamonds Are Forever!
I really missed the gang connection in the book. Particularly the line >(referring to the mob back East): "tell them they are suffering from >delusions of adequacy" (approximate, from memory).
. . .
I would also argue that Connery's Bond is almost a new character in >>>>Goldfinger. He wore pastels! But Dalton returned to the way Connery >>>>played Bond in Dr No.
I'm not sure pastels make a character "new".
As the consumate English snob, Ian Fleming looked down upon Sean
Connery, who was not only working class but (horrors) Scottish. James
Bond, in the novels, exemplified Fleming's refined opinions (if Fleming >>said so himself) and fine taste in clothes, food, and elegant living, to >>the extent Bond could afford it on a civil servant's wage.
Connery simply did not look like Bond. Preparing for Dr. No, the
director Terence Young sent Connery to his tailor and created the look
for Bond in at least the first two movies.
The costume -- the very well-tailored evening clothes -- established the >>character.
For Goldfinger, the new director Guy Hamilton took Bond in a different >>direction. The movie is not a straight adaptation, a good thing as so
much of Fleming's plot concerning the crime had to be thrown out; the
novel is quite weak.
I always liked the line in the book: "once is chance, twice in
coincidence, three times is enemy action" (approximate, from memory).
They killed the second Masterson girl off way to early.
And the
inevitable trend toward more massive endings than the books (starting
with /Dr. No/, although /From Russia With Love/ confined it to a boat
chase) was disappointing. Where the book had an improbably massive
getaway with the gold, the film has -- an atomic device. Giving the
film a plot point eventually used in the third Die Hard movie.
While the attache case in FRWL is an important prop, in Goldfinger, you
got the immortal Aston Martin DB5 and future Bond movies' overreliance
on gadgets. And the black humor in the puns are more frequent and less >>subtle. Goldfinger sets up the Roger Moore era.
That car -- said to be the very one used in the film, although I
suspect that it was, at best, only one of those used -- actually
toured the USA so fans could pay money to look at it.
That Hamilton changed Bond's costume was part of the change.
I'm particularly fond of the Bond movies that are somewhat straighter >>adaptations of the novels, but Goldfinger is fabulously entertaining. We >>can enjoy both.
But not caring whether his martinis are shaken or stirred.
Hehehehehehehe
That was actually intended to be a response to the claim that Dalton's
Bond was a return to Connery's. Although Dalton did a fine job, I was
glad with the end of the last one because it pretty much guaranteed it
was the /last/ one. I never really got into the Reboot Bonds.
Those people aren't true Bond fans. We accept that Bond movies lack >>>>explanation and continuity, what little there was in the novels, gets >>>>destroyed when the movies were out of sequence. Somehow Bond and >>>>Blofeld, both recast, hadn't met in On Her Majesty's Secret
Service. Bond is supposed to be perpetually in his mid 30s. The later >>>>novels dropped his WWII navy service. We accept that Craig's Bond is >>>>earlier in "continuity" than the rest of them, despite each movie being >>>>set contemporarily.
Quite right. Even to accepting the Craig Bond. I'm not sure I want to
see the Reboot Bonds again but, since I am working my way through the >>>James Bond series at the putative rate of one every six days, and >>>/Goldfinger/ is next, it will be a while before I make a final
decision about those.
Casino Royale (1967) is quite entertaining despite its many flaws, with
437 different directors and an overblown mismanaged production that
almost rivals Cleopatra. The David Niven/Deborah Kerr scenes are the
worst portion of the movie. Orson Welles was fantastic casting for Le >>Chiffre but because he and Peter Sellers did not get along, those scenes >>were ruined as well.
The one we saw in the Army was longer than the current DVD version
(the one I have includes an earlier version done on USA TV, with Jimmy
Bond, CIA Agent, being helped by Felix Leiter, MI6 agent -- all I can
say is "thank God the films were done by Brits!").
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2. . .
On Mar 10, 2026 at 8:49:21 AM PDT, "Paul S Person" ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:Bing research suggests that, in this case, the shared meaning is
On Mon, 9 Mar 2026 22:20:54 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
For Goldfinger, the new director Guy Hamilton took Bond in a different
direction. The movie is not a straight adaptation, a good thing as so
much of Fleming's plot concerning the crime had to be thrown out; the
novel is quite weak.
I always liked the line in the book: "once is chance, twice in
coincidence, three times is enemy action" (approximate, from memory).
Aren't chance and coincidence the same thing?
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:<snippo >
Thanks for catching that. Speaking of senior moments ... that's aIn the books, Bond is still a target of SMERSH and SPECTRE lies in his >>future. But otherwise the film of /For Your Eyes Only/ is quite close
to the book.
You mean the adaptation of From Russia With Love. For Your Eyes Only was
a short story, about Judy, seeking revenge for the assasination of her >parents, the Havelocks. The movie's Bond girl is Judy and the revenge
story remains and includes an adaptation of another short story as you
note below, but otherwise it's an original script.
Octopussy includes an adaptation of Property of a Lady in one well-done >scene, of course.I missed that entirely. Even though the title was mentioned in the
Yes it does! I saw the film last night, and it is still as exciting asThey killed the second Masterson girl off way to early.
Excellent criticism
And the
inevitable trend toward more massive endings than the books (starting
with /Dr. No/, although /From Russia With Love/ confined it to a boat >>chase) was disappointing. Where the book had an improbably massive
getaway with the gold, the film has -- an atomic device. Giving the
film a plot point eventually used in the third Die Hard movie.
The device counts down to 007!
Yes, and it might have worked -- but, please God, not with "JimmyThe one we saw in the Army was longer than the current DVD version
(the one I have includes an earlier version done on USA TV, with Jimmy >>Bond, CIA Agent, being helped by Felix Leiter, MI6 agent -- all I can
say is "thank God the films were done by Brits!").
It has Peter Lorre as Le Chiffre! Excellent casting choice.
Note that one of Fleming's earliest adaptation attempts was for there to
be James Bond episodes, either in a stand-alone tv series or in an
anthology or wheel series. Some of the short stories began as unproduced
tv scripts.
Let me note that the best of the early novels was Moonraker. The onlyThat was strange novel the first time I read it.
way to give it a proper adaptation is to set it in the 1950s, but no one
will ever do it right.
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 05:14:57 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
<snippo >
But I did notice Maud Adams apparently having a hard time believing
she was required to recite a precis of "Octopussy".
The best actual adaptation of a short story was, IMHO, the start of
/The Living Daylights/ -- from the end of the titles to when Dalton
says the line.
<snippo to /Goldfinger/>
That reminded me that /Goldfinger/ started another trend: the use of a
title song that doesn't appear anywhere else in the film. Some of
these don't make sense: what does "like Thunderball" /mean/, given
that "Thunderball" is a code name for the operation to recover the
nukes before Blofeld can use them?
. . .
Not as strange as /The Spy Who Loved Me/, however. I regard it as
basically three short stories, only the third of which involves James
Bond (although he shows up at the end of the second).
Now /there/ is a novel which was "adapted" by using the title and
James Bond and then ignoring the rest of it entirely that got what it >deserved, IMHO.
plutedpup@outlook.com wrote:
On 2/28/26 1:14 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
"Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Everything Larry and David Ellison Will Control
if Paramount Buys Warner Bros.
-----------------------------------------------
Paramount Skydance's sprawling media empire will get a major
boost if the deal gets approved.
Conservative Oracle founder Larry Ellison
Who care's if he's a Conservative? All Jews are on the same side.
OK, antisemite.
plutedpup@outlook.com wrote:
It's rumored Musk also used Arab money for buying twitter
rather than just his own money for massive financial
rewards to the crooked former management of Twitter.
Oh, you tricked me into saying "Arab", when I'm assuming
you mean Saudi Arabia, run by a family who are puppets
of Israel.
Racism noted.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:Network TV did in the USA.
On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 05:14:57 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
<snippo >
But I did notice Maud Adams apparently having a hard time believing
she was required to recite a precis of "Octopussy".
Hehehehe
I loved Sean Connery's "Poooosy Galore"; no one took Ian Fleming's
double entendres in names seriously.
I am still affected here by my experience with this film: the firstThe best actual adaptation of a short story was, IMHO, the start of
/The Living Daylights/ -- from the end of the titles to when Dalton
says the line.
I agree. The more original parts of the script aren't as good.
So the studio owned (had the rights to) the title and the character,<snippo to /Goldfinger/>
That reminded me that /Goldfinger/ started another trend: the use of a >>title song that doesn't appear anywhere else in the film. Some of
these don't make sense: what does "like Thunderball" /mean/, given
that "Thunderball" is a code name for the operation to recover the
nukes before Blofeld can use them?
The producers were idiots, demanding that the title be sung as a lyric. >Thunderball's lyrics are stupid for that reason.
A better theme song, rejected, was Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. You can find >covers by both Shirley Bassey and Dionne Warwick, plus there's a cover
of Goldfinger's theme by Anthony Newley, likely as a demonstration as
those lyrics are not intended to be sung by a male singer.
. . .
Not as strange as /The Spy Who Loved Me/, however. I regard it as
basically three short stories, only the third of which involves James
Bond (although he shows up at the end of the second).
Now /there/ is a novel which was "adapted" by using the title and
James Bond and then ignoring the rest of it entirely that got what it >>deserved, IMHO.
Contractually, Fleming prevented its adaptation because he thought the
story was a failure as both a revenge story and with Bond being forced
into it.
When /Goldfinger/ was shown on TV, the audience heard "Miss Galore"
and they heard "Pussy", but they /never/ heard "Pussy Galore".
Verily, in article <vjo5rkpn4h30qtmo3vnlqt715ou2sj7fc0@4ax.com>, did psperson@old.netcom.invalid deliver unto us this message:
When /Goldfinger/ was shown on TV, the audience heard "Miss Galore"
and they heard "Pussy", but they /never/ heard "Pussy Galore".
That doesn't make any sense. If you're going to say "pussy," what's
wrong with adding the perfectly acceptable "galore"?
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:Yes, SPECTRE and so Blofeld were introduced in the film /Dr. No/. In
On Mon, 9 Mar 2026 12:32:25 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
There's a theory that "James Bond" is not a person but a code name for=20 >>>>whoever's the top agent at the time. Among other things, this explains=20 >>>>how Sean Connery was able to return to the role after Roger Moore had=20 >>>>taken it, with Moore then taking over again. They weren't playing the=20 >>>>same character; they were two different agents using the name at=20 >>>>different times.
For those who believe that theory, a black Bond wouldn't be a problem.
Those people cannot handwave away that
1) Sean Connery fails to notice that the plot is awfully familiar as
it's a remake
Now there you've got me.
But it was a very good remake!
2) Roger Moore, in For Your Eyes Only, returns the same Maguffin stolen >>>by the girl then given to Sean Connery in From Russia With Love
The same /sort/ of maguffin but not the same one.
One was a Russian Lektor, the other a British ATAC
Technically, that's correct, but For Your Eyes Only was a deliberate
call back to From Russia With Love, the novel which was literally Cold
War and the Russians were the enemies. In the movie, Blofeld and SPECTRE
were added. Yet again, the studio didn't have the cash to make a movie
as hideously expensive as Moonraker and they wanted to get away from all
the excesses. Except for the parrot, it's a great movie. The director
forced Roger Moore to ACT, which he did too little of in his career.
I was very happy when I saw it in /License to Kill/.. . .
The first Leiter went on to star in "Hawaii 5-0". From then it was, as
you say, a mish-mash.
If you hadn't heard the story, Leiter is an important supporting
character in the novels set in the US and Carribean. Lord thought he
could get away with a casting guarantee and a huge pay rise to a star's >salary. Producers thought otherwise. Recast with Cec Linder for
Goldfinger, it was a deliberate choice to cast an actor who looked
different.
David Hedison was Leiter in two movies, Live and Let Die and Licence to
Kill. Filming Dr. No before LALD tossed continuity out the window. The
shark attack from the LALD novel got moved to LTK. There's continuity
between those two movies but later movies have no reference to the shark >attack.
Thanks for the info.Moneypenny aged out -- unless leaving was the actress' own idea, this
is an example of preferring young actresses to older ones.
Lois Maxwell wanted to retire from playing the character. She and Roger
Moore had been acting students together and long-time friends. She used >Moore's retirement from the role -- The Living Daylights had originally
been written assuming Moore would return but then got rewritten for a
more serious Timothy Dalton -- to retire herself.
Hey, you're the one that called him "ridiculous". I'm just pointingOf course,
the new Bond was younger than the old Bond, so it made a sort of
sense. IIRC, one of the reasons /Hush ... Hush Sweet Charlotte/ was so >>popular is precisely because it featured actors of the feminine
persuasion who had not been seen on screen in a long long time due to
their age. Of course, being a very scary film helped as well.
I'll agree.
Blofeld's cat, not a character in the novels, was also recast.
Cats also age out..
Nah. Like Jack Lord, the cat demanded too much money.
6) The theory accomplishes nothing for MI-6. Also, Bond is a ridiculous >>>spy given that every casino and fine hotel in Europe knows who he is.
This is because, as the newspapers once were in the habit of saying
when each and every James Bond film came out, he is not a spy. He is a >>cleaner. And he cleans down to the very nap, if not beyond.
The character is meant to be cinematic, not realistic.
I really missed the gang connection in the book. Particularly the line (referring to the mob back East): "tell them they are suffering fromAlternate answer: his reputation as a playboy is useful cover.
Planting his Playboy Club membership card on the henchman (with whom he
had one of the best cinematic fight scenes of all times) he had just
killed was a plot point in Diamonds Are Forever!
I always liked the line in the book: "once is chance, twice inThe only support for that theory is the self-deprecating joke Lazenby >>>makes when Diana Rigg doesn't immediately get dissuaded from her suicide >>>attempt upon encountering Bond. "That never happened to the other >>>fellow." Also, it's the plot of Casino Royale (1967).
And that was understood (at least by me) to be the actor's comment on >>replacing Connery.
. . . and whether the audience would accept recasting. Exactly right.
I would also argue that Connery's Bond is almost a new character in >>>Goldfinger. He wore pastels! But Dalton returned to the way Connery >>>played Bond in Dr No.
I'm not sure pastels make a character "new".
As the consumate English snob, Ian Fleming looked down upon Sean
Connery, who was not only working class but (horrors) Scottish. James
Bond, in the novels, exemplified Fleming's refined opinions (if Fleming
said so himself) and fine taste in clothes, food, and elegant living, to
the extent Bond could afford it on a civil servant's wage.
Connery simply did not look like Bond. Preparing for Dr. No, the
director Terence Young sent Connery to his tailor and created the look
for Bond in at least the first two movies.
The costume -- the very well-tailored evening clothes -- established the >character.
For Goldfinger, the new director Guy Hamilton took Bond in a different >direction. The movie is not a straight adaptation, a good thing as so
much of Fleming's plot concerning the crime had to be thrown out; the
novel is quite weak.
While the attache case in FRWL is an important prop, in Goldfinger, youThat car -- said to be the very one used in the film, although I
got the immortal Aston Martin DB5 and future Bond movies' overreliance
on gadgets. And the black humor in the puns are more frequent and less >subtle. Goldfinger sets up the Roger Moore era.
That Hamilton changed Bond's costume was part of the change.That was actually intended to be a response to the claim that Dalton's
I'm particularly fond of the Bond movies that are somewhat straighter >adaptations of the novels, but Goldfinger is fabulously entertaining. We
can enjoy both.
But not caring whether his martinis are shaken or stirred.
Hehehehehehehe
The one we saw in the Army was longer than the current DVD versionThose people aren't true Bond fans. We accept that Bond movies lack >>>explanation and continuity, what little there was in the novels, gets >>>destroyed when the movies were out of sequence. Somehow Bond and
Blofeld, both recast, hadn't met in On Her Majesty's Secret
Service. Bond is supposed to be perpetually in his mid 30s. The later >>>novels dropped his WWII navy service. We accept that Craig's Bond is >>>earlier in "continuity" than the rest of them, despite each movie being >>>set contemporarily.
Quite right. Even to accepting the Craig Bond. I'm not sure I want to
see the Reboot Bonds again but, since I am working my way through the
James Bond series at the putative rate of one every six days, and >>/Goldfinger/ is next, it will be a while before I make a final
decision about those.
Casino Royale (1967) is quite entertaining despite its many flaws, with
437 different directors and an overblown mismanaged production that
almost rivals Cleopatra. The David Niven/Deborah Kerr scenes are the
worst portion of the movie. Orson Welles was fantastic casting for Le
Chiffre but because he and Peter Sellers did not get along, those scenes
were ruined as well.
But the women -- Joanna Petet, Daliah Lavu, Barbara Bouchet -- plus >Jacqueline Bisset in a small role, were glorious. The Burt BacharachActually, I watch it first, before /Dr. No/. This despite it's
score performed by Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass. Dusty Springfield >performing The Look of Love.
Did I mention the women?
Sure, watch it when you are in the mood. It doesn't have to be watched
with the rest of the movies.
On Mon, 9 Mar 2026 22:20:54 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
For Goldfinger, the new director Guy Hamilton took Bond in a different
direction. The movie is not a straight adaptation, a good thing as so
much of Fleming's plot concerning the crime had to be thrown out; the
novel is quite weak.
I always liked the line in the book: "once is chance, twice in
coincidence, three times is enemy action" (approximate, from memory).
In article <10okem0$2j96d$1@dont-email.me>, dtravel@sonic.net wrote:
On 3/7/2026 10:59 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
In article <10nvlrn$3m304$2@dont-email.me>, atropos@mac.com wrote:
"Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Everything Larry and David Ellison Will Control
if Paramount Buys Warner Bros.
-----------------------------------------------
Paramount Skydance's sprawling media empire will get a major
boost if the deal gets approved.
Conservative Oracle founder Larry Ellison dropped $110 billion to have >>>> Paramount-Skydance devour Warner Bros. Discovery whole.
He's conservative? Didn't he buy the 007 franchise from the Brocolli
widow, only to remove the gun from all Bond posterwork and announce
the next Bond movie will have a "Bond They/Them"?
All the discussion that I've seen about who the next Bond will be have
been about male actors.
I remember them floating the idea of Bond being a black guy but
I thought someone tried to float the idea of a Jane Bond.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 63 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 492949:36:28 |
| Calls: | 840 |
| Files: | 1,302 |
| D/L today: |
13 files (8,263K bytes) |
| Messages: | 254,343 |