Highly recommended. It's not Skyfall, but close. Skyfall is my absolute favorite.Hazelwood72 wrote: ↑11 Oct 2025 13:43 pmEnjoy! My wife and I did that 4 or 5 years ago. She bought me the complete set on BluRay as a Christmas gift and we watched them in order. Of course, I had to make a cheesy joke about wanting Ursula to Undress and my wife gave me the Gordie Howe elbow.TAFKAP wrote: ↑11 Oct 2025 13:32 pmI'll be honest, I haven't seen a Connery bond movie in like 30 years. The kids these days are fed up with the cost of streaming services, and the fact that you don't really "own" something when you "buy" it on Amazon. They've gone back to my youth and media piracy. AAARRRRGGGHHHH! I remember me yout!!Hazelwood72 wrote: ↑11 Oct 2025 11:52 amOh, don’t get me wrong. I liked Daniel Craig, too, and for the very reasons you cited.TAFKAP wrote: ↑10 Oct 2025 20:29 pmSee, we're going to have another disagreement. Daniel Craig is the best Bond. People go on about him being too dark. James Bond has a mass murderer's body count. Of COURSE he's going to be dark. He's not a sociopath.Hazelwood72 wrote: ↑10 Oct 2025 19:35 pmThose Scottish heritage guys look great in a tux.
“Bond. James Bond.”
Ironic that the best Bond, Sean Connery, was a Scot, not an Englishman as author Ian Fleming created.
My daughter and her boyfriend recently ripped EVERY Bond movie and put them on a memory card for me so I'm going back to watch all of them in order. I will leave this open, because I like certain performances better than others. Before Casino Royale my favorite Bond movie was Goldeneye. IT's still up there. The Roger Moore movies got too campy.
I read an article once that said Timothy Dalton was closest to what author Ian Fleming visualized as Bond. As Fleming wrote, Bond was a typical dour, all business, rather characterless MI6 killer and not as elegant, handsome, or smooth as Connery, Moore, and Brosnan were in the movie versions. But yeah, I’m biased toward Connery mainly since he’s what I saw first and I liked his droll humo(u)r. One of my first dates was taking a girlfriend to Diamonds are Forever. Jill St. John played a perfect airhead in that one.
Now I have all the Bond movies so I'm going back and watching them in order.
Our set was prior to “No Time to Die”, however, and I haven’t even seen it yet, so I gotta go do that.
The Substantial Difference in Owners
Moderators: STLtoday Forum Moderators, Blues Talk Moderators
Re: The Substantial Difference in Owners
-
STL fan in MN
- Forum User
- Posts: 2670
- Joined: 23 May 2024 13:57 pm
Re: The Substantial Difference in Owners
No Pierce Brosnan fans eh?
-
AtillaTheBlue1
- Forum User
- Posts: 1124
- Joined: 13 May 2018 08:13 am
Re: The Substantial Difference in Owners
no one will ever claim tom as a bad owner, but if the league continues to grow, financially, he needs a billionaire, who wants to lose money to buy a piece of this club.
the other so called owners, backed his bid, do not write checks, and are an owner in name only.
stillman is a millionaire, not 100's of millions, etc. so for him, and a high cap, can be a crunch. Nice to have some one willing to just p iss cash away, to help tom with the bills, to be able to stay with the big boys. which is why drafting players and getting players to over achieve is a must.
cardinals have a billionaire, who wants to compete, not win anything. he's already won, and at 90 years of age, what else does he need from team? His son is a moron, who tries to milk the fans of their cash, with 3rd jerseys, road caps, 1937 home jerseys, etc.
the other so called owners, backed his bid, do not write checks, and are an owner in name only.
stillman is a millionaire, not 100's of millions, etc. so for him, and a high cap, can be a crunch. Nice to have some one willing to just p iss cash away, to help tom with the bills, to be able to stay with the big boys. which is why drafting players and getting players to over achieve is a must.
cardinals have a billionaire, who wants to compete, not win anything. he's already won, and at 90 years of age, what else does he need from team? His son is a moron, who tries to milk the fans of their cash, with 3rd jerseys, road caps, 1937 home jerseys, etc.
-
Stlcardsblues
- Forum User
- Posts: 949
- Joined: 23 May 2024 19:52 pm
Re: The Substantial Difference in Owners
Got to meet him once in New Haven, CT at a Blues practice. It was a brief meeting but he was incredibly kind to me and my kids.skeezix wrote: ↑10 Oct 2025 12:55 pm Last night, Tom Stillman was personally greeting fans as they entered the Enterprise Center.
I seriously doubt that either of the DeWitt's would stoop so low as to greet their patrons. Like the French monarchs at the beginning of their Revolution - "Let them eat cake!"
-
Hazelwood72
- Forum User
- Posts: 1234
- Joined: 02 Feb 2021 23:05 pm
Re: The Substantial Difference in Owners
Hiya Tony,Tony Palazzolo wrote: ↑11 Oct 2025 06:04 amYou have to give the Dewitts their due. They ran a competitive club that was in the playoffs year after year. It won 2 World Series and took the team to 4. The Cardinals had the highest or 2nd highest attendance nearly every year. The last few years have not been good, but man what a 20 year run or an owner group. You have to have respect for Stillman and what they have done. I hope they can come close to run that the DeWitts had.Hazelwood72 wrote: ↑10 Oct 2025 19:33 pm Yes. For the few missteps that the Tom Stillman ownership committed (not renewing John Kelly ranks near the top), Mr. Stillman has done a great job and deserves accolades.
And yes, a total breath of fresh air compared to DeWallet, Jr, DeWallet III, and Mozo the Clown.
I’ll agree with you for the first 2/3rds of DeWitt’s ownership. Unfortunately, for the last 10 years, he’s been mailing it in and allowing Mozo the Clown to destroy what he had.
So yeah, from 1995 to 2015, the Cardinals did well. That’s 20 really good years. But you could see cracks in the foundation even as early as 2014. The last 10 years have been really, really bad, and have continually gone downhill.
We got a brief reprieve in 2019 when Mike Shildt got the Cards back to playing solid baseball, but Mozo couldn’t stand a manager who pushed back on The Great & Powerful Mo, and fired Shildt.
Sorry for my rant. I’ve said the same stuff on Cards Talk. I really need to let it go and hope Bloom can turn it around.
Have a good one!
Re: The Substantial Difference in Owners
He was brilliant in Goldeneye. I didn't like the others as much because they got to Roger Moore level of campy gadgetry. I LOVED Dame Judi Dench as M. Favorite M, by far. She was soooooo good in Skyfall. So as of now, my list is,
Skyfall
Goldeneye
No Time To Die
Casino Royale
Goldfinger
The Rest of Daniel Craig
Dr. No
Live And Let Die
The rest of Pierce Brosnan
The Rest
-
Tony Palazzolo
- Forum User
- Posts: 202
- Joined: 24 May 2024 10:13 am
Re: The Substantial Difference in Owners
Yeah well they bought the team in 96 and went on "nearly" a 20 year run. By any standards that is a seriously good run. I agree that they have not been good for awhile. It hasn't been a fun product to watch. I'll agree on Schildt, the guy made it fun again. He had them play a version of Whitey ball. I was stunned when they fired him.Hazelwood72 wrote: ↑11 Oct 2025 22:21 pmHiya Tony,Tony Palazzolo wrote: ↑11 Oct 2025 06:04 amYou have to give the Dewitts their due. They ran a competitive club that was in the playoffs year after year. It won 2 World Series and took the team to 4. The Cardinals had the highest or 2nd highest attendance nearly every year. The last few years have not been good, but man what a 20 year run or an owner group. You have to have respect for Stillman and what they have done. I hope they can come close to run that the DeWitts had.Hazelwood72 wrote: ↑10 Oct 2025 19:33 pm Yes. For the few missteps that the Tom Stillman ownership committed (not renewing John Kelly ranks near the top), Mr. Stillman has done a great job and deserves accolades.
And yes, a total breath of fresh air compared to DeWallet, Jr, DeWallet III, and Mozo the Clown.
I’ll agree with you for the first 2/3rds of DeWitt’s ownership. Unfortunately, for the last 10 years, he’s been mailing it in and allowing Mozo the Clown to destroy what he had.
So yeah, from 1995 to 2015, the Cardinals did well. That’s 20 really good years. But you could see cracks in the foundation even as early as 2014. The last 10 years have been really, really bad, and have continually gone downhill.
We got a brief reprieve in 2019 when Mike Shildt got the Cards back to playing solid baseball, but Mozo couldn’t stand a manager who pushed back on The Great & Powerful Mo, and fired Shildt.
Sorry for my rant. I’ve said the same stuff on Cards Talk. I really need to let it go and hope Bloom can turn it around.
Have a good one!
-
mlbensinger
- Forum User
- Posts: 23
- Joined: 09 Jun 2024 15:39 pm
Re: The Substantial Difference in Owners
I grew up on Connery and then Moore. Didn't care for Dalton at the time (though watching his two movies now, I have an appreciation for both him and his movies). Loved Brosnan, he was my favorite - probably influenced by his other work. But I agree about Craig. Casino Royale is my favorite Bond film easily. I do have quibbles with both Quantam and the ending of No Time To Die. That all said, to me his body of Bond work is the best.TAFKAP wrote: ↑10 Oct 2025 20:29 pmSee, we're going to have another disagreement. Daniel Craig is the best Bond. People go on about him being too dark. James Bond has a mass murderer's body count. Of COURSE he's going to be dark. He's not a sociopath.Hazelwood72 wrote: ↑10 Oct 2025 19:35 pmThose Scottish heritage guys look great in a tux.
“Bond. James Bond.”
Ironic that the best Bond, Sean Connery, was a Scot, not an Englishman as author Ian Fleming created.
My daughter and her boyfriend recently ripped EVERY Bond movie and put them on a memory card for me so I'm going back to watch all of them in order. I will leave this open, because I like certain performances better than others. Before Casino Royale my favorite Bond movie was Goldeneye. IT's still up there. The Roger Moore movies got too campy.
-
mlbensinger
- Forum User
- Posts: 23
- Joined: 09 Jun 2024 15:39 pm
Re: The Substantial Difference in Owners
I loved Brosnan at the time, and still do. But he's right, the gadgetry just got so far out of hand.
-
seattleblue
- Forum User
- Posts: 1867
- Joined: 08 Feb 2025 12:01 pm
Re: The Substantial Difference in Owners
I mean, Remington Steele. Also the remake of Thomas Crown was perfect for him
Re: The Substantial Difference in Owners
He was great IMO. Great actor in general. Perfectly cast in The Thomas Crown Affair.
Re: The Substantial Difference in Owners
Now I understand what "highjacking a thread" is.
-
Hazelwood72
- Forum User
- Posts: 1234
- Joined: 02 Feb 2021 23:05 pm
Re: The Substantial Difference in Owners
TAFKAP wrote: ↑12 Oct 2025 16:59 pmHe was brilliant in Goldeneye. I didn't like the others as much because they got to Roger Moore level of campy gadgetry. I LOVED Dame Judi Dench as M. Favorite M, by far. She was soooooo good in Skyfall. So as of now, my list is,
Skyfall
Goldeneye
No Time To Die
Casino Royale
Goldfinger
The Rest of Daniel Craig
Dr. No
Live And Let Die
The rest of Pierce Brosnan
The Rest
Roger Moore was not the best Bond, but you're selling him short. Some of those movies were pretty great growing up in the 70's. Also, the one with George Lazenby was quite good also. While I enjoyed Daniel Craig's version, Connery will always get the nod for the best Bond from me. Dalton and Brosnan put out some pretty boring Bond films.