Support NeoGAF

[Billfisto]

But according to arguments here, canon is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it was the main series or not. It doesn't matter if the producers considered it as the main series or not. It doesn't matter how much the producers cared. It's Star Wars and it counts. No matter how loosely based it was or is on the main entries.

While Lucas may not have cared, the Bond producers literally had zero say and actively fought against these being produced. The only reason they even own them now is to ensure they're not brought up ever again. The Bond set claimed to have all 24 films. Which is what was present in the set.

I feel like we're arguing the same thing. But Star Wars doesn't count just because.

Again, "The Star Wars Saga" is their branding for the mainline numbered movies. If the James Bond collection was labelled as "The James Bond Saga" or "The James Bond Collection" I would agree with you.

However, they labelled it as "All 24 James Bond Movies", and:

1) there are more than 24 movies featuring the character James Bond, and
2) this collection does does include all the movies featuring the character James Bond.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The listings are irrelevant. You can't label something "every X" and then on the side list the subset of "every X" that it actually contains and pretend it wasn't false advertising.

"Contains Every Season of The Simpsons!"

(Back of set lists seasons 13-22)

The "All 24" might be what saves them. They listed a number, so they could argue that their "All Bond Films" contains 24, and if a consumer's opinion differed they should have checked.

Except as far as MGM canon is concerned those are all of them, your Simpsons example is not a good one.

 

[Acerac]

You're being extremely aggressive over this and you need to calm down. There is no need to question anyone's language skills here. I'm not even sure why you're still engaging me as you have said we have fundamental disagreements here.

Saga just means long or intricate story. Does not mean main story. I'd argue that as a long, intricate story, all parts of a given franchise no matter how small contribute to the saga.

As far as relevance, if you're arguing that these two movies are true Bond movies, then you also have to argue there are over 20 Bond actors and 27 movies. I think it is extremely relevant. How can those be legit Bond movies, but not count towards the Bond actor list and movie count? Either they do or they don't. Hence the relevance. Oh and cow's milk, and goat's cheese.

I am replying to you because you quoted my post. I understand that we have fundamental disagreements, but as I noted earlier it is fun to discuss such things, and it is by talking with those I disagree with most strongly that I gain a more thorough knowledge of why they believe the way they do.

The comment about a second language wasn't a crack at your ability to communicate, but it was an earnest idea as to why our understandings are different at such a fundamental level. Many things are often lost in translation, and it seemed easy to believe that in other languages, the word all may be more flexible than it is in English. Given a few word choices that seemed similar to some friends I know that are not native speakers, and it just seemed a possible conclusion. As I said, if that is the case your ability to communicate in an alternate language far exceeds my own, you are quite fluent.

I agree about the how ridiculous the task of collecting All Bond Films would be, which is why an unnecessary sticker that claims it has this improbable collection shouldn't have been added. I do not think this is unfair.

Do you have Brown hair?

 

[TAJ]

Except as far as MGM canon is concerned those are all of them, your Simpsons example is not a good one.

Even if you actually care about canon it can change on a whim, as we saw a few years ago with Star Wars.

 

[snap]

But according to arguments here, canon is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it was the main series or not. It doesn't matter if the producers considered it as the main series or not. It doesn't matter how much the producers cared. It's Star Wars and it counts. No matter how loosely based it was or is on the main entries.

While Lucas may not have cared, the Bond producers literally had zero say and actively fought against these being produced. The only reason they even own them now is to ensure they're not brought up ever again. The Bond set claimed to have all 24 films. Which is what was present in the set.

I feel like we're arguing the same thing. But Star Wars doesn't count just because.

No we're not.

You're literally ignoring the use of the word "all" even though that's the important thing here. It said all 24 films, but also allegedly said all the Bond films collected together for the first time, no "24" in that phrase.

And again with the Star Wars stuff, if they had put "all of the Star Wars films" your argument would make sense. Instead, you're trying to argue "The Complete Saga" is claiming the same thing, which it is not.

Here's another example--The Middle-earth Box Set. Check out their wording:

For the first time ever, Academy Award®-winning director Peter Jackson's epic adventure is available in one spectacular limited collector's edition box set.

The don't say "all Middle-earth movies." They specifically say "Peter Jackson's epic adventure." You know why? Because like Bond, there are movies based off of the Hobbit that are either bootleg or not part of the blockbuster francise.

So "Complete" means nothing instead? Because it says "Complete." In the case of Star Wars.

I mean, it's used completely fine in the case of Star Wars. It's referring to the Saga, which is complete. Which Saga is it? The one Lucas views as the Saga of Star Wars, i.e. the part of Star Wars he thinks counts, which is not any of the spinoff stuff.

 

[Slayven]

Fox owns all distribution rights. Theatrical, everything.

And canon is not relevant.
If you brought up the idea of canon in court there's a good chance that the judge would laugh at you.
Canon holds as much weight as Slayven's opinions on superhero matchups.

Don't hate me because i am right

 

[excelsiorlef]

The same company now owns both the mainline and the two (legally made) side-ones, though. They actually have the rights to include them.

and tbh movie companies like pulling this shit, box sets that are missing X or Y so they can resell the actual complete box set later on and capture double dip purchasers

Dude they've released like 3 box sets and never included them... they are never going to include them because they don't count.

 

[jediyoshi]

I don't care what codenames they call them, and neither do courts.
It's trivial.

Practically the entirety of this hinges on literally the words "ALL 24 BOND FILMS". They're probably going to take some numbers into account. I don't see the point in downplaying them as 'codenames' when they're just as referenced in press media come preproduction time.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Again, "The Star Wars Saga" is their branding for the mainline numbered movies. If the James Bond collection was labelled as "The James Bond Saga" or "The James Bond Collection" I would agree with you.

However, they labelled it as "All 24 James Bond Movies", and:

1) there are more than 24 movies featuring the character James Bond, and
2) this collection does does include all the movies featuring the character James Bond.

This isn't common knowledge. If something says "Complete Saga," I'm going to assume everything. Not just the main series. I'm going to assume everything even remotely associated with the franchise and storyline. Loosely based on it or not.

I am replying to you because you quoted my post. I understand that we have fundamental disagreements, but as I noted earlier it is fun to discuss such things, and it is by talking with those I disagree with most strongly that I gain a more thorough knowledge of why they believe the way they do.

The comment about a second language wasn't a crack at your ability to communicate, but it was an earnest idea as to why our understandings are different at such a fundamental level. Many things are often lost in translation, and it seemed easy to believe that in other languages, the word all may be more flexible than it is in English. Given a few word choices that seemed similar to some friends I know that are not native speakers, and it just seemed a possible conclusion. As I said, if that is the case your ability to communicate in an alternate language far exceeds my own, you are quite fluent.

I agree about the how ridiculous the task of collecting All Bond Films would be, which is why an unnecessary sticker that claims it has this improbable collection shouldn't have been added. I do not think this is unfair.

Do you have Brown hair?

No brown hair. I am about knee deep in some bourbon, though. That's kind of brown.

 

[Acerac]

So "Complete" means nothing instead? Because it says "Complete." In the case of Star Wars.

This is what I meant earlier. A native English speaker would naturally pair words together, while you seem to take them individually. I know when processing words in other languages I often parse them individually and make sense of the phrasing later.

Once again, apologies if I'm off the mark, but it would explain the difference in perception perfectly.

What is your blood type?

 

[TAJ]

Don't hate me because i am right

That was not meant as a slight. If it was I would have named someone else.

 

[thetrin]

Never say Never Again and Casino Royale are not in continuity, so why would you want them? Never Say Never Again is also crap.

 

[snap]

Never say Never Again and Casino Royale are not in continuity, so why would you want them? Never Say Never Again is also crap.

why do people go out of their way to get every collectible in video games they play.

it's like pokemon, you gotta have them all.

and also, i have to imagine, if this suit is successful, they'll start including those two movies in these box sets (they put out a new one every movie), and you'll be able to have every single bond movie (even these two) in nice packaging with a box set that fits everything.

 

[Billfisto]

This isn't common knowledge. If something says "Complete Saga," I'm going to assume everything. Not just the main series. I'm going to assume everything even remotely associated with the franchise and storyline. Loosely based on it or not.

Yes, but as you said, that's your assumption.

"Complete Saga" adds more qualifications that are open to interpretation. "All" is pretty cut and dry.

If they said "Star Wars: The Complete Collection" I'd agree that it was misleading, as it's missing things.

It's funny that you're arguing "common knowledge" when your last arguments have hinged on casual bystanders knowing which company produced a James Bond movie and how many James Bond movies are officially acknowledged.

 

[_Ryo_]

"all the Bond films collected together for the first time"

That statement means all of the films, regardless if they are canon. Regardless if the rights holders want to acknowledge them. Regardless if they are bad films. If they own the rights to distribute them and refuse to, despite claiming that the set includes every Bond film, they should be legally challenged.

 

[excelsiorlef]

They could have easily put ALL EOS Bond movies, 24 Bond movies, or just not included the fucking sticker. It may have all the canon movies, but there are movies outside of the canon.

I can not understand how so many people in this thread are arguing that all does not mean all. The worst part is I don't even understand why they are fighting this fight other than "fuck that lady who sued". It's not that I'm not trying, I legitimately do not understand how they can possibly have the perspective that all means a portion of a whole.

Because this is a low stakes harmless argument about something silly so it's fun to debate it.

 

[Syriel]

I mean, it's used completely fine in the case of Star Wars. It's referring to the Saga, which is complete. Which Saga is it? The one Lucas views as the Saga of Star Wars, i.e. the part of Star Wars he thinks counts, which is not any of the spinoff stuff.

But that Star Wars box set does NOT include the original Star Wars films.

and also, i have to imagine, if this suit is successful, they'll start including those two movies in these box sets (they put out a new one every movie), and you'll be able to have every single bond movie (even these two) in nice packaging with a box set that fits everything.

No, they'll just add the word official. EON will never recognize unauthorized productions. And EON won't let a publisher do so either.

 

[snap]

But that Star Wars box set does NOT include the original Star Wars films.



No, they'll just add the word official. EON will never recognize unauthorized productions. And EON won't let a publisher do so either.

it...does? unless you're going in on special edition technicality, which is a very flimsy argument.

yeah, probably, but i can also see the woman suing hoping otherwise. why otherwise would she sue? it's only $100 and she can return it, it's probably less than the legal fees.

edit: though, they did let MGM rerelease never say never again on DVD in 2000, so maybe there's a chance.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Yes, but as you said, that's your assumption.

"Complete Saga" adds more qualifications that are open to interpretation. "All" is pretty cut and dry.

If they said "Star Wars: The Complete Collection" I'd agree that it was misleading, as it's missing things.

It's funny that you're arguing "common knowledge" when your last arguments have hinged on casual bystanders knowing which company produced a James Bond movie and how many James Bond movies are officially acknowledged.

It says Star Wars: The Complete Saga. I mean, you take that as meaning not really the complete saga and just the main movies? Nothing else?

 

[Acerac]

Because this is a low stakes harmless argument about something silly so it's fun to debate it.

I am replying to you because you quoted my post. I understand that we have fundamental disagreements, but as I noted earlier it is fun to discuss such things, and it is by talking with those I disagree with most strongly that I gain a more thorough knowledge of why they believe the way they do.

I... guess I can't argue.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

When Warners buys EON outright this whole thing will be moot because they'll run all the previous films through the Warners Remaster Magic Machine, and they'll stick every other possible version of Bond that's ever existed on their new set as bonus features, and they'll sell it for like 400 bucks and it'll come in a replica Aston Martin on a mahogany base, and you'll have to punch in a code via keypad in the base in order to eject the correct disc from a slot in the trunk of the car.

Some shit like that.

 

[Cheebo]

why do people go out of their way to get every collectible in video games they play.

it's like pokemon, you gotta have them all.

and also, i have to imagine, if this suit is successful, they'll start including those two movies in these box sets (they put out a new one every movie), and you'll be able to have every single bond movie (even these two) in nice packaging with a box set that fits everything.

No they will not. If anything they will change the movies. Most fans would be angry if they placed a weird Woody Allen spoof alongside the actual Bond films as an equal. If you think fans actually want that then you have a strong misunderstanding of this franchise.

EON puts these boxsets together. EON never made those movies. They don't consider them real.

Your Pokémon point brings up a comparison kinda. EON is to Bond as Game Freak is to Pokémon. Game Freak doesn't care about the random third party cash in Pokémon games just like EON doesn't care about these.

 

[Syriel]

it...does? unless you're going in on special edition technicality, which is a very flimsy argument.

How is it any more flimsy than what you are arguing?

The original Star Wars films are different than the Special Editions in a number of ways. They are not the same films.

The two films that you say should be included in the Bond set are alternate versions of two of the stories that are included in the set.

Unlike the Star Wars films (where the originals that are missing were produced by Lucasfilm), the two films in question here were not in any way authorized by EON.

When Warners buys EON outright this whole thing will be moot because they'll run all the previous films through the Warners Remaster Magic Machine, and they'll stick every other possible version of Bond that's ever existed on their new set as bonus features, and they'll sell it for like 400 bucks and it'll come in a replica Aston Martin on a mahogany base, and you'll have to punch in a code via keypad in the base in order to eject the correct disc from a slot in the trunk of the car.

Some shit like that.

Y U HAX WB Bobby?

 

[snap]

When Warners buys EON outright this whole thing will be moot because they'll run all the previous films through the Warners Remaster Magic Machine, and they'll stick every other possible version of Bond that's ever existed on their new set as bonus features, and they'll sell it for like 400 bucks and it'll come in a replica Aston Martin on a mahogany base, and you'll have to punch in a code via keypad in the base in order to eject the correct disc from a slot in the trunk of the car.

Some shit like that.

Austin Powers is a New Line property

Could you imagine the heads that would explode if they put both in a box set as "The Spy Collection" or something

How is it any more flimsy than what you are arguing?

The original Star Wars films are different than the Special Editions in a number of ways. They are not the same films.

The two films that you say should be included in the Bond set are alternate versions of two of the stories that are included in the set.

No? Because they're the same movies, just with slight scene additions and some added CG? If we go down this path then no remastered version of any movie ever would be "the original movie" because they almost always change subtle things about the movie, like color grading.

Besides, if we go off of that rumor that ILM spliced their work back into the original negatives, the special editions are the original movie, in that the original form of the movie now contains those changes.

Additionally, that box set does contain the original cuts of those movies. Each of the original trilogy movies has a second disc that's a transfer from the LaserDisc release from before the Special Edition.Never mind got my Star Wars releases mixed up

Also, the point I was making before was that "The Complete Saga" is the saga Lucas chooses to be the true and ultimate saga of the Star Wars story, and that included the special editions.

Told ya it was a weak argument.

 

[Slayven]

That was not meant as a slight. If it was I would have named someone else.

Like Bronsonlee?

 

[Cheebo]

Austin Powers is a New Line property

Could you imagine the heads that would explode if they put both in a box set as "The Spy Collection" or something

EON has a say in all this you know. It's their films. EON will never sign off on a boxset of their films being intermixed with non-EON Bond films (which they dispese the very existence of, as do most fans).

 

[excelsiorlef]

Even if you actually care about canon it can change on a whim, as we saw a few years ago with Star Wars.

It'll never include those 2 not produced by Eon films sooo...

 

[Cheebo]

It'll never include those 2 not produced by Eon films sooo...

I really don't think people fully understand EON produces these films. EON wants absolutely nothing to do with the films they had no say in.

It's like if Sony went off and did their own Star Wars film without asking Lucasfilm or involving them in anyway. And it ended up getting poor reviews and seen as somewhat of a knock off. Which is the reception these 2 films got that EON wasn't involved with.

Do you think lucasfilm would be eager to include it with their films?

 

[Billfisto]

It says Star Wars: The Complete Saga. I mean, you take that as meaning not really the complete saga and just the main movies? Nothing else?

At that time Lucas or whoever delineated the mainline Anakin/Like arc as "The Star Wars Saga". It does contain the complete Anakin/Luke arc. That could be argued in court. They didn't say "All __ Star Wars movies".

Your argument is:

"All" does not equal "All".

 

[excelsiorlef]

I... guess I can't argue.

Like I think the lawsuit shouldn't succeed because it's clear to me what the statement means but if MGM loses whatever they're rich.

This is a nice reprieve from all the higher stakes politics I usually sink my teeth in.

At least I know here no one is going to conclude that people arguing MGM's side are why Trump won... I hope.

 

[turtle553]

Don't you have a Consumer Agency to go via?

We do, but there is state and federal levels. And those usually deal with gross fraud and not minor issues. They would also be overloaded, so we use class action as a pseudo-government process.

 

[excelsiorlef]

At that time Lucas or whoever delineated the mainline Anakin/Like arc as "The Star Wars Saga". It does contain the complete Anakin/Luke arc. That could be argued in court. They didn't say "All __ Star Wars movies".

Your argument is:

"All" does not equal "All".

You dropped complete... Complete is basically another word for all.

And if you're gonna argue that Lucasfilms gets to classify what is an official Star Wars Saga movie (Star Wars Clone Wars movie for example is not included... that's part of the Anakin Skywalker story which you just defined as the meaning of the word "Saga" here) then I'd argue tthat Eon gets to define what is a James Bond film. Juts because a movie has a James Bond in it doesn't make it an official James Bond film.

If we're gonna be pedantic... and this thread is hella worth being pedantic.

 

[snap]

EON has a say in all this you know. It's their films. EON will never sign off on a boxset of their films being intermixed with non-EON Bond films (which they dispese the very existence of, as do most fans).

If they got bought out by Warner they don't get to override the wishes of the parent company

Spoiler

i know it wouldn't happen but still

 

[Billfisto]

You dropped complete... Complete is basically another word for all.

And if you're gonna argue that Lucasfilms gets to classify what is an official Star Wars Saga movie (Star Wars Clone Wars movie for example is not included... that's part of the Anakin Skywalker story which you just defined as the meaning of the word "Saga" here) then I'd argue tthat Eon gets to define what is a James Bond film. Juts because a movie has a James Bond in it doesn't make it an official James Bond film.

If we're gonna be pedantic... and this thread is hella worth being pedantic.

"Complete" is a modifier of "Saga". I could make a "Complete Lando Collection" and only include two films. "Complete Saga" in this case means "all the films we define as The Saga".

And EON can totally define what they view as a James Bond film if they want to. They didn't do so here.

 

[Syriel]

Also, the point I was making before was that "The Complete Saga" is the saga Lucas chooses to be the true and ultimate saga of the Star Wars story, and that included the special editions.

Told ya it was a weak argument.

And EON only recognizes officially authorized films to be the true and ultimate sage of the Bond story, and those does not include unauthorized knock-offs.

It's the same argument, just a different shade.

You're either for both, or against both. You can't split the middle here if you want to stay consistent.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

"Complete" is a modifier of "Saga". I could make a "Complete Lando Collection" and only include two films. "Complete Saga" in this case means "all the films we define as The Saga".

And EON can totally define what they view as a James Bond film if they want to. They didn't do so here.

I'd say they did by saying "All 24" films when they subsequently included 24 films as defined by Eon/MGM. I'm just confused on the flexibility being afforded to Lucasfilms versus the extremely rigid conditions being imposed on Eon/MGM.

 

[snap]

And EON only recognizes officially authorized films to be the true and ultimate sage of the Bond story, and those does not include unauthorized knock-offs.

It's the same argument, just a different shade.

You're either for both, or against both. You can't split the middle here if you want to stay consistent.

you missed some of my earlier posts then

the star wars complete saga doesn't claim "All the ____ films gathered together for the first time." like the bond box set allegedly does

I'd say they did by saying "All 24" films when they subsequently included 24 films as defined by Eon/MGM. I'm just confused on the flexibility being afforded to Lucasfilms versus the extremely rigid conditions being imposed on Eon/MGM.

you never replied when i pointed out EON didn't just say "all 24 films," they said "all the Bond films."

which, by the way, that's incorrect too. it's not the 24 film box set, it's the 22 film box set. i even linked the article that pointed that out: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/th...es-bond-box-set-missing-two-bond-films-992172

 

[Bobby Roberts]

There's only one S in Lucasfilm

 

[GoldenEye 007]

you missed some of my earlier posts then

the star wars complete saga doesn't claim "All the ____ films gathered together for the first time." like the bond box set allegedly does



you never replied when i pointed out EON didn't just say "all 24 films," they said "all the Bond films."

which, by the way, that's incorrect too. it's not the 24 film box set, it's the 22 film box set. i even linked the article that pointed that out: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/th...es-bond-box-set-missing-two-bond-films-992172

It says complete, though. Which is the same as all.

It appears they bought the box set released in 2012. Which was before Skyfall and Spectre were filmed or were available on home release. So 22 films is correct. I was led to believe the set was the mostly white boxset I saw referenced in this thread.

The rights regarding at least Thunderball/NSNA wasn't even figured out until 2013.

 

[snap]

It says complete, though. Which is the same as all.

It appears they bought the box set released in 2012. Which was before Skyfall and Spectre were filmed or were available on home release. So 22 films is correct. I was led to believe the set was the mostly white boxset I saw referenced in this thread.

The rights regarding at least Thunderball/NSNA wasn't even figured out until 2013.

it says the complete saga, which again, isn't necessarily defined as "every movie in the Star Wars canon," but whatever Lucas decides is the saga of Star Wars.

If it was "the Complete Film Library" or "Complete Film Collection" maybe you'd have an argument.

Also, MGM got distribution rights to both of those movies back in the 90s.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

it says the complete saga, which again, isn't necessarily defined as "every movie in the Star Wars canon," but whatever Lucas decides is the saga of Star Wars.

If it was "the Complete Film Library" or "Complete Film Collection" maybe you'd have an argument.

Also, MGM got distribution rights to both of those movies back in the 90s.

This is what the article you linked says:

In 2013, the long fight over Bond rights was settled, but not in time for the 50th anniversary DVD box set titled Bond 50, Celebrating Five Decades of Bond 007, which Johnson purchased for $106.44.

The additional article further clarifies it truly wasn't fully settled until 2013. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/james-bond-mgm-danjaq-settle-656432

Either way, it says when the box set was purchased, the legal status of at least NSNA was in limbo and not actually fully settled.

 

[Cheebo]

There's only one S in Lucasfilm

One day Bobby, many years from now, you will be on your death bed surrounded by loved ones. You will overhear a nurse say "'My favorite Disney movie is Star Wars." and with your last dying breath instead of saying goodbye to your loved ones you will utter "It's actually Lucasfilm..." and then pass away.

 

[GabeTheGrouch76]

Interestingly enough, MGM bought the rights to Casino Royale '67 and Never Say Never Again in the late 90s. So they could had added the films to the boxset and made it a "true" complete collection if they wanted (but I presume they aren't allowed to, given how EON pretends those films don't exist).

That aside, clarifying the box set as having all of the "official" Bond films, or all of the EON/Danjaq-produced Bond films, would had at least avoided this legal mess.

Austin Powers is a New Line property

Could you imagine the heads that would explode if they put both in a box set as "The Spy Collection" or something

Forget a collection, that's grounds for a crossover film! :v

Powerful Bonds: Her Majesty's Secret Service Agents

 

[snap]

This is what the article you linked says:



The additional article further clarifies it truly wasn't fully settled until 2013. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/james-bond-mgm-danjaq-settle-656432

Either way, it says when the box set was purchased, the legal status of at least NSNA was in limbo and not actually fully settled.

The question of "who gets the money from this" was in limbo, but MGM still had the legal right to sell and distribute copies of those movies. That's how they were able to put out NSNA on DVD in 2000, as linked in one of my past comments.

Interestingly enough, MGM bought the rights to Casino Royale '67 and Never Say Never Again in the late 90s. So they could had added the films to the boxset and made it a "true" complete collection if they wanted (but I presume they couldn't, given EON pretends those films don't exist).

That aside, clarifying the box set as having all of the "official" Bond films, or all of the EON/Danjaq-produced Bond films, would had at least avoided this legal mess.



Forget a collection, that's grounds for a crossover film! :v

Powerful Bonds: Her Majesty's Secret Service Agents

EXACTLY! Don't worry, here comes GoldenEye 007 to vehemently disagree with you because Star Wars or something.

And man, that crossover film'd be worth it just to see Bond fanboys blow a gasket like some in this thread are already.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I'll appear behind them as a glowing blue spectre and continue the explanation in a calm, rational voice.

 

[Billfisto]

I'll appear behind them as a glowing blue spectre and continue the explanation in a calm, rational voice.

Lucassssssssfilsssmmmsss.

 

[snap]

I'll appear behind them as a glowing blue spectre and continue the explanation in a calm, rational voice.

young bobby roberts or old bobby roberts

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I don't know if there's ever been a thing such as "young Bobby Roberts" but I'm pretty sure "Old Bobby Roberts" is just Danny DeVito in an argyle sweater.

 

[nekkid]

“No reasonable person, unless a James Bond expert, would understand that ‘all’ does not mean all, and ‘every’ means only certain films,” the lawyers wrote.

And yet perversely, only a "James Bond expert" would care.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

The question of "who gets the money from this" was in limbo, but MGM still had the legal right to sell and distribute copies of those movies. That's how they were able to put out NSNA on DVD in 2000, as linked in one of my past comments.



EXACTLY! Don't worry, here comes GoldenEye 007 to vehemently disagree with you because Star Wars or something.

And man, that crossover film'd be worth it just to see Bond fanboys blow a gasket like some in this thread are already.

Meh, I'll still sleep like a drunk baby tonight.