I gave a link to an in-depth article from an independent reputable source saying that it was not as you are describing it - can you provide a similar source to support your proposition?
Have you read that article? To quote;
'At some point, Feldman went to Broccoli and Saltzman and tried to broker a deal to film Casino Royale in partnership with them, but he wanted too large a share and the talks broke down.'
'Furious that he had not come to an agreement with Broccoli and Saltzman, Feldman approached Connery to see if he would be interested in jumping ship. Connery said he would for a million dollars, but this was too much for Feldman’s blood and he turned him down.'
From an interview with...
MARTIN CAMPBELL: No, I think they always wanted to get the book and they never have been able to till just recently. Now they have the book...Barbara, said Cubby always wanted to make the book. They made one. Not a good movie. A spoof with five bonds, which Ursula Andress was one, by the way.
I think after all this very fruitful debate on the Doctor Who forum we have finally found our way to the real crux of the matter!
Was or was not the more recent version of Casino Royale a reboot of the sixties original?
Ridiculous isn't it, other posters get lambasted for not talking about Doctor Who on the Doctor Who forum, seems to be yet another instance of do as I say, not as I do.
'At some point, Feldman went to Broccoli and Saltzman and tried to broker a deal to film Casino Royale in partnership with them, but he wanted too large a share and the talks broke down.'
'Furious that he had not come to an agreement with Broccoli and Saltzman, Feldman approached Connery to see if he would be interested in jumping ship. Connery said he would for a million dollars, but this was too much for Feldman’s blood and he turned him down.'
From an interview with...
MARTIN CAMPBELL: No, I think they always wanted to get the book and they never have been able to till just recently. Now they have the book...Barbara, said Cubby always wanted to make the book. They made one. Not a good movie. A spoof with five bonds, which Ursula Andress was one, by the way.
As I said - they could have made CR but they would have had to pay Feldman. You claimed that they COULDN'T make the film - I said that they CHOSE not to.
As I said - they could have made CR but they would have had to pay Feldman. You claimed that they COULDN'T make the film - I said that they CHOSE not to.
Minky, you just cannot accept you are wrong. They couldn't make the film because they didn't have the rights. They didn't have the rights because, when close to a deal, Broccoli decided to make the brand new story Thunderball instead. Broccoli always coveted the rights to CR but the rights owners wouldn't let them have them due to the friction between both parties. Then the Master was born in a barn, laid an egg and Danny dire ate my hamster in a rebooted Doctor Who franchise. It is all well documented.
If someone gets a kick up the arse and lets say from a boot wearing person and the later get another from the same person and boot is that a reboot?
I think it'd have to be a different boot otherwise it's a continuation. They could change boots or ask someone else with other boots to lend a...foot. I think for a pure reboot though it should definitely be a completely different style of boot, and at least on the other foot.
Ridiculous isn't it, other posters get lambasted for not talking about Doctor Who on the Doctor Who forum, seems to be yet another instance of do as I say, not as I do.
I was going to add a grin smiley as my comment was meant light-heartedly and kindly as well as making a point, but as I'd read (most of what I could cope with of!) this thread in alternate states of hysterics and disbelief thought I'd leave it open to interpretation!
One poster (can't be arrissed to scroll back) said the way the question was posed was not what this forum's for (assuming and presuming disruptive intent by the OP where I personally could see none), only to then write one or two posts later that the forum's for discussion of Doctor Who (or something along those lines)
It's one of the reasons why I often don't come on here tbh - another being two (imo) very rude posts from others I've read today having a go at people for drawing attention to one very specific aspect of the episode in their own threads that had already been covered (but not exhausted as topics) in the meandering episode thread.
Why have a forum at all? Why not just one thread?! Why on earth shouldn't people be able to scan a couple of pages of threads and choose ones that call out to them to reply to, rather than read a mega thread and post a reply that will probably never be followed up on (seen this numerous times today on the episode thread)? I know that's why and how I like to use forums, and why I often feel out of place here.
Minky I love your analysis and dedication to it, but seriously man, I think you you need to let go sometimes (not lumping you in with those rude ******* at all here). Life is not always black and white and this seems like slightly more of a grey area than I first thought (not by much though - for me Doctor Who has never been rebooted), but we're all different eh? Your truth is not everyone's and you don't have to be right every single time.
Minky, you just cannot accept you are wrong. They couldn't make the film because they didn't have the rights. They didn't have the rights because, when close to a deal, Broccoli decided to make the brand new story Thunderball instead. Broccoli always coveted the rights to CR but the rights owners wouldn't let them have them due to the friction between both parties. Then the Master was born in a barn, laid an egg and Danny dire ate my hamster in a rebooted Doctor Who franchise. It is all well documented.
As I said - you're focussing on trying to prove people wrong rather than proving your own argument is right - on a matter of opinion.
Where there are facts, you are either misunderstanding them or twisting them.
Not "having the rights" applies to EVERY film every made based on someone else's intellectual or legal property. At some point, someone pays someone else to acquire some or all of those rights to allow them to produce a film. It is COMPLETELY NORMAL for one company to buy the rights and for another someone or company to buy some or all of those rights from that "third-party" - Star Trek was traded in just that manner a number of times.
People and studio buy rights "on spec" - as an investment as well as with a view to making a film. That doesn't mean they always and only produce a film in-house - it means they are willing to GAMBLE on SOMEONE making that film during the time they own those rights. If they don't/can't make the film themselves, they will try to find someone willing to pay their asking price - THAT is what happened with CR - Broccoli CHOSE not to make CR cos the COST would be too high, not because the rights weren't available to him - he was offered them and turn them down as too expensive.
As I said - you're focussing on trying to prove people wrong rather than proving your own argument is right - on a matter of opinion.
Where there are facts, you are either misunderstanding them or twisting them.
Not "having the rights" applies to EVERY film every made based on someone else's intellectual or legal property. At some point, someone pays someone else to acquire some or all of those rights to allow them to produce a film. It is COMPLETELY NORMAL for one company to buy the rights and for another someone or company to buy some or all of those rights from that "third-party" - Star Trek was traded in just that manner a number of times.
People and studio buy rights "on spec" - as an investment as well as with a view to making a film. That doesn't mean they always and only produce a film in-house - it means they are willing to GAMBLE on SOMEONE making that film during the time they own those rights. If they don't/can't make the film themselves, they will try to find someone willing to pay their asking price - THAT is what happened with CR - Broccoli CHOSE not to make CR cos the COST would be too high, not because the rights weren't available to him - he was offered them and turn them down as too expensive.
How do I know that - it's IN YOUR POST
Good. You enjoy yourself in Minkyworld and the rest of us will struggle on in reality.
Life is not always black and white and this seems like slightly more of a grey area than I first thought (not by much though - for me Doctor Who has never been rebooted), but we're all different eh? Your truth is not everyone's and you don't have to be right every single time.
I really don't care about "being right" - I just don't mind responding to people politely (if firmly) trying so hard to prove that an opinion is wrong.
And regardless of the trolls shouting their garbage, this IS about Doctor Who. If the end of this points to a solid case and some useful facts to more fully support the opinion that the word "reboot" CAN'T be applied to the show, that may remove the need for threads like this to exist in future.
And if the trolls are incapable of simply ignoring a thread that they dislike and to which they have contributed nothing, I'd say that reflect four-square on them and their nature. Koq' and I are arguing now but five minutes from now, we'll probably be in full agreement in another thread.
I was going to add a grin smiley as my comment was meant light-heartedly and kindly as well as making a point, but as I'd read (most of what I could cope with of!) this thread in alternate states of hysterics and disbelief thought I'd leave it open to interpretation!
One poster (can't be arrissed to scroll back) said the way the question was posed was not what this forum's for (assuming and presuming disruptive intent by the OP where I personally could see none), only to then write one or two posts later that the forum's for discussion of Doctor Who (or something along those lines)
It's one of the reasons why I often don't come on here tbh - another being two (imo) very rude posts from others I've read today having a go at people for drawing attention to one very specific aspect of the episode in their own threads that had already been covered (but not exhausted as topics) in the meandering episode thread.
Why have a forum at all? Why not just one thread?! Why on earth shouldn't people be able to scan a couple of pages of threads and choose ones that call out to them to reply to, rather than read a mega thread and post a reply that will probably never be followed up on (seen this numerous times today on the episode thread)? I know that's why and how I like to use forums, and why I often feel out of place here.
Minky I love your analysis and dedication to it, but seriously man, I think you you need to let go sometimes (not lumping you in with those rude ******* at all here). Life is not always black and white and this seems like slightly more of a grey area than I first thought (not by much though - for me Doctor Who has never been rebooted), but we're all different eh? Your truth is not everyone's and you don't have to be right every single time.
Peace bro. I'm off to fill my boots with beer *
* Meant with genuine goodwill
To be fair to everyone on here though, this forum is a bit 'kill or be killed'. One flippant not overly thought through remark and you've got 5 Doctor Who fans telling you why you're wrong. I'm not surprised so many arguments break out, one has to be constantly defensive because others are usually on the defence.
How does Scream of the Shalka fit into the whole was it or wasn't it rebooted argument?
...Runs away from the thread again
(BTW just be clear I'm talking about Doctor Who continuity rather than James Bond continuity)
Canon is a different issue - with only a possible connection.
A rebooted show drops some "non-essential" elements and the writer/producer MAY decide to remove or change some elements that were regarded as canon" in the original or previous version - but they aren't obliged to and they may in fact decide to embrace and build on them in ways that the previous show never bothered doing.
In the DW reboot, for example, we've been shown the Doctor and Master as children and we've seen the origins of the Doctor's flight from Gallifrey - something that was never even mentioned at the start of the first DW series. We've also been given insights into the thoughts, feelings and family lives of the supporting cast - including some that were brought over from that original series along with other key elements such as the titles of some characters and races.
Some elements were brought over in name only - the Cybermen exist but "Mondas" gets no mention, for example.
To date, I don't believe that any elements from comics, audio-only or other such sources have been added to the new version but that doesn't mean it will never happen - they have included other elements that only existed outside of the original series such as the eighth Doctor and even chose to expand on his story almost 20 years later. It is even reported that the makers of the new series wanted to recognise the Peter Cushing films to some degree but were unable to justify the cost of licensing of the material and images.
In short - fans of the audio and books might see at least some of that material on screen - anything's possible now.
I really don't care about "being right" - I just don't mind responding to people politely (if firmly) trying so hard to prove that an opinion is wrong.
And regardless of the trolls shouting their garbage, this IS about Doctor Who.
You need to re-read this thread, particularly your own input imho - you've done it again - bib <facepalm>
If the end of this points to a solid case and some useful facts to more fully support the opinion that the word "reboot" CAN'T be applied to the show, that may remove the need for threads like this to exist in future.
You've been told time and time again, presented with as much factual evidence as one should need imo, but as far as I can see divert into semantics, and ignore everything that doesn't gel with your own (quite rude and contradictory messages) earlier on. I took care not to name you as the one who was laying down 'the law' on what can or can not be posted here, only to contradict yourself just one or two posts later, because I like you (despite your stubbornness and failure to see things from both sides - IMO) but you're going too far for me.
And if the trolls are incapable of simply ignoring a thread that they dislike and to which they have contributed nothing, I'd say that reflect four-square on them and their nature. Koq' and I are arguing now but five minutes from now, we'll probably be in full agreement in another thread.
Dear gads man look in the mirror for once! You just described yourself perfectly (although I know you're not a troll) - you're projecting! What on earth is that all about?
To be fair to everyone on here though, this forum is a bit 'kill or be killed'. One flippant not overly thought through remark and you've got 5 Doctor Who fans telling you why you're wrong. I'm not surprised so many arguments break out, one has to be constantly defensive because others are usually on the defence.
Yeah that's why I don't come here much. So many egos and 'I am right, you're a troll (even if 'only' heavily implied)'. Not what I have any time for whatsoever. This life is short eh? I give my opinion - I read others. Respect mine just as I respect yours. Minky thinks it's a reboot - alright the evidence, definitions, etymology and popular consensus point absolute otherwise but let him ignore all that - that's cool. It's what it means to him
But to continually and imho quite rudely shove that down other people's throats and not respect others' own point of view (and to spend so much time doing so on a thread no-one will remember the details of in a week's time) is quite baffling to me.
There are bigger fish to fry in life.
Absolutely staggered by this thread...not the OP's question but...some other things...I have no time for this nonsense.
If the end of this points to a solid case and some useful facts to more fully support the opinion that the word "reboot" CAN'T be applied to the show, that may remove the need for threads like this to exist in future.
You've been told time and time again, presented with as much factual evidence as one should need imo, but as far as I can see divert into semantics, and ignore everything that doesn't gel with your own (quite rude and contradictory messages) earlier on. I took care not to name you as the one who was laying down 'the law' on what can or can not be posted here, only to contradict yourself just one or two posts later, because I like you (despite your stubbornness and failure to see things from both sides - IMO) but you're going too far for me.
Dear gads man look in the mirror for once! You just described yourself perfectly (although I know you're not a troll) - you're projecting! What on earth is that all about?
Yeah that's why I don't come here much. So many egos and 'I am right, you're a troll (even if 'only' heavily implied)'. Not what I have any time for whatsoever. This life is short eh? I give my opinion - I read others. Respect mine just as I respect yours. Minky thinks it's a reboot - alright the evidence, definitions, etymology and popular consensus point absolute otherwise but let him ignore all that - that's cool. It's what it means to him
But to continually and imho quite rudely shove that down other people's throats and not respect others' own point of view (and to spend so much time doing so on a thread no-one will remember the details of in a week's time) is quite baffling to me.
There are bigger fish to fry in life.
Absolutely staggered by this thread...not the OP's question but...some other things...I have no time for this nonsense.
<throws flan>
One love!
Not to mention the fact he has repeatedly referred to me as a troll and now a stalker! Whereas anyone with eyes can read my posts and see this is nonsense. The plot has been lost on this thread and certain people should follow their own advice.
Go back to the opening post and the title of the thread - it asks WHY DO SOME PEOPLE CALL IT A REBOOT.
Only someone who DOES call it that can answer that question.
Who else can POSSIBLY answer that question without GUESSING what someone else was thinking?
It was not a matter of my ignoring the thread - it was a perfectly reasonable thread until a small contingent moved in an tried to divert it. I have been happy to respond to several people who disagree with me - whilst doing no harm to any one.
The fact that some people who could not possibly answer the question posed in this thread without guessing what I'm thinking - and who have used that as an excuse to post personal insults - does not make me a troll.
Fact is - there is no single definition of the word "reboot" that categorically proves or disproves the notion that this is a reboot - and it makes no difference if a thousand people think that's unfair on them. Their inability to simply accept that it's possible for NO-ONE TO BE WRONG does not discredit me.
And how about you GIVE that "evidence". I've given the definitions - in full and with links - poiint to the posts where you or anyone else has done that. Anyone can say "he's ignored the evidence" but WHAT EVIDENCE?
And EVIDENCE of what?
The question wasn't "Is it RIGHT to call it a reboot?" - I've answered the question and been pilloried for it by people who refuse to ALLOW someone to have a view they don't like.
In some ways it's not a reboot. The origin story told in Hulk isn't contradicted at all.
that's true actually. I suppose I count it as such because it is clearly an effort to place the Hulk firmly in line with the Shield-verse though you're quite right. There was nothing that meant they couldn't have carried on where Ang Lee left off. Probably due to the lukewarm response to that version.
Comments
I know what you mean. I can't believe this argument is still going on!
If someone gets a kick up the arse and lets say from a boot wearing person and the later get another from the same person and boot is that a reboot?
Have you read that article? To quote;
'At some point, Feldman went to Broccoli and Saltzman and tried to broker a deal to film Casino Royale in partnership with them, but he wanted too large a share and the talks broke down.'
'Furious that he had not come to an agreement with Broccoli and Saltzman, Feldman approached Connery to see if he would be interested in jumping ship. Connery said he would for a million dollars, but this was too much for Feldman’s blood and he turned him down.'
From an interview with...
MARTIN CAMPBELL: No, I think they always wanted to get the book and they never have been able to till just recently. Now they have the book...Barbara, said Cubby always wanted to make the book. They made one. Not a good movie. A spoof with five bonds, which Ursula Andress was one, by the way.
Ridiculous isn't it, other posters get lambasted for not talking about Doctor Who on the Doctor Who forum, seems to be yet another instance of do as I say, not as I do.
Unconstructive posts are posts that contribute nothing to a thread - http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/announcement.php?f=249
As I said - they could have made CR but they would have had to pay Feldman. You claimed that they COULDN'T make the film - I said that they CHOSE not to.
Minky, you just cannot accept you are wrong. They couldn't make the film because they didn't have the rights. They didn't have the rights because, when close to a deal, Broccoli decided to make the brand new story Thunderball instead. Broccoli always coveted the rights to CR but the rights owners wouldn't let them have them due to the friction between both parties. Then the Master was born in a barn, laid an egg and Danny dire ate my hamster in a rebooted Doctor Who franchise. It is all well documented.
I think it'd have to be a different boot otherwise it's a continuation. They could change boots or ask someone else with other boots to lend a...foot. I think for a pure reboot though it should definitely be a completely different style of boot, and at least on the other foot.
I was going to add a grin smiley as my comment was meant light-heartedly and kindly as well as making a point, but as I'd read (most of what I could cope with of!) this thread in alternate states of hysterics and disbelief thought I'd leave it open to interpretation!
One poster (can't be arrissed to scroll back) said the way the question was posed was not what this forum's for (assuming and presuming disruptive intent by the OP where I personally could see none), only to then write one or two posts later that the forum's for discussion of Doctor Who (or something along those lines)
It's one of the reasons why I often don't come on here tbh - another being two (imo) very rude posts from others I've read today having a go at people for drawing attention to one very specific aspect of the episode in their own threads that had already been covered (but not exhausted as topics) in the meandering episode thread.
Why have a forum at all? Why not just one thread?! Why on earth shouldn't people be able to scan a couple of pages of threads and choose ones that call out to them to reply to, rather than read a mega thread and post a reply that will probably never be followed up on (seen this numerous times today on the episode thread)? I know that's why and how I like to use forums, and why I often feel out of place here.
Minky I love your analysis and dedication to it, but seriously man, I think you you need to let go sometimes (not lumping you in with those rude ******* at all here). Life is not always black and white and this seems like slightly more of a grey area than I first thought (not by much though - for me Doctor Who has never been rebooted), but we're all different eh? Your truth is not everyone's and you don't have to be right every single time.
Peace bro. I'm off to fill my boots with beer
* Meant with genuine goodwill
As I said - you're focussing on trying to prove people wrong rather than proving your own argument is right - on a matter of opinion.
Where there are facts, you are either misunderstanding them or twisting them.
Not "having the rights" applies to EVERY film every made based on someone else's intellectual or legal property. At some point, someone pays someone else to acquire some or all of those rights to allow them to produce a film. It is COMPLETELY NORMAL for one company to buy the rights and for another someone or company to buy some or all of those rights from that "third-party" - Star Trek was traded in just that manner a number of times.
People and studio buy rights "on spec" - as an investment as well as with a view to making a film. That doesn't mean they always and only produce a film in-house - it means they are willing to GAMBLE on SOMEONE making that film during the time they own those rights. If they don't/can't make the film themselves, they will try to find someone willing to pay their asking price - THAT is what happened with CR - Broccoli CHOSE not to make CR cos the COST would be too high, not because the rights weren't available to him - he was offered them and turn them down as too expensive.
How do I know that - it's IN YOUR POST
Good. You enjoy yourself in Minkyworld and the rest of us will struggle on in reality.
I really don't care about "being right" - I just don't mind responding to people politely (if firmly) trying so hard to prove that an opinion is wrong.
And regardless of the trolls shouting their garbage, this IS about Doctor Who. If the end of this points to a solid case and some useful facts to more fully support the opinion that the word "reboot" CAN'T be applied to the show, that may remove the need for threads like this to exist in future.
And if the trolls are incapable of simply ignoring a thread that they dislike and to which they have contributed nothing, I'd say that reflect four-square on them and their nature. Koq' and I are arguing now but five minutes from now, we'll probably be in full agreement in another thread.
To be fair to everyone on here though, this forum is a bit 'kill or be killed'. One flippant not overly thought through remark and you've got 5 Doctor Who fans telling you why you're wrong. I'm not surprised so many arguments break out, one has to be constantly defensive because others are usually on the defence.
How does Scream of the Shalka fit into the whole was it or wasn't it rebooted argument?
...Runs away from the thread again
(BTW just be clear I'm talking about Doctor Who continuity rather than James Bond continuity)
Alternative time-line set in the dimension of the Boneless.
Canon is a different issue - with only a possible connection.
A rebooted show drops some "non-essential" elements and the writer/producer MAY decide to remove or change some elements that were regarded as canon" in the original or previous version - but they aren't obliged to and they may in fact decide to embrace and build on them in ways that the previous show never bothered doing.
In the DW reboot, for example, we've been shown the Doctor and Master as children and we've seen the origins of the Doctor's flight from Gallifrey - something that was never even mentioned at the start of the first DW series. We've also been given insights into the thoughts, feelings and family lives of the supporting cast - including some that were brought over from that original series along with other key elements such as the titles of some characters and races.
Some elements were brought over in name only - the Cybermen exist but "Mondas" gets no mention, for example.
To date, I don't believe that any elements from comics, audio-only or other such sources have been added to the new version but that doesn't mean it will never happen - they have included other elements that only existed outside of the original series such as the eighth Doctor and even chose to expand on his story almost 20 years later. It is even reported that the makers of the new series wanted to recognise the Peter Cushing films to some degree but were unable to justify the cost of licensing of the material and images.
In short - fans of the audio and books might see at least some of that material on screen - anything's possible now.
You have a great deal to give so I really say that with the best of intentions
You need to re-read this thread, particularly your own input imho - you've done it again - bib <facepalm>
In some ways it's not a reboot. The origin story told in Hulk isn't contradicted at all.
Only someone who DOES call it that can answer that question.
Who else can POSSIBLY answer that question without GUESSING what someone else was thinking?
It was not a matter of my ignoring the thread - it was a perfectly reasonable thread until a small contingent moved in an tried to divert it. I have been happy to respond to several people who disagree with me - whilst doing no harm to any one.
The fact that some people who could not possibly answer the question posed in this thread without guessing what I'm thinking - and who have used that as an excuse to post personal insults - does not make me a troll.
Fact is - there is no single definition of the word "reboot" that categorically proves or disproves the notion that this is a reboot - and it makes no difference if a thousand people think that's unfair on them. Their inability to simply accept that it's possible for NO-ONE TO BE WRONG does not discredit me.
And how about you GIVE that "evidence". I've given the definitions - in full and with links - poiint to the posts where you or anyone else has done that. Anyone can say "he's ignored the evidence" but WHAT EVIDENCE?
And EVIDENCE of what?
The question wasn't "Is it RIGHT to call it a reboot?" - I've answered the question and been pilloried for it by people who refuse to ALLOW someone to have a view they don't like.
that's true actually. I suppose I count it as such because it is clearly an effort to place the Hulk firmly in line with the Shield-verse though you're quite right. There was nothing that meant they couldn't have carried on where Ang Lee left off. Probably due to the lukewarm response to that version.