This is the spot where we put the best of the criticism received.
If anyone wants to respond to the criticisms, the fastest way is by emailing us at email@example.com
We will add your rebuttal directly after the critical comments you are responding to.
I can see where you're coming from with Pierce, he was a good actor and one of the finest interpreters of Bond we have seen.
All this contrived disapproval of Craig is mis-guided at best, or pathetic at worst. I say this because I, unlike yourselves, am a Bond fan who anticipates with eagerness the next bond installment without threatening a boycott just because I disapprove of the leading actor or elements of the plot, if I was then I would have boycotted Goldeneye 10 years ago, and just LOOK how wrong I would have been!
It seems obvious to me that NOBODY knows what Casino Royale is going to be like, you could be right about everything, but there are a huge amount of fans just waiting to turn their backs on you if you're wrong.
Oh and by the way, ever heard of the phrase "all press is good press?" well with that in mind... how much damage do you think this site can really do? there are at most about 50 - 100 people willing to boycott Casino Royale out of their own stubbornness, damage which can be more then fixed by a single positive review in say a college newspaper or local press, let alone the big magazines like Empire etc.
17 May 2006 07:09:01
I think (and many women I know including my wife and mother) Craig might just bring back the sexy, rugged machoism missing since Connery. Your site also shows that you don't know much about Ian Fleming's books.
You quotes: "it is well known that Bond tragically lost his wife, now erasing that history to retell it is one thing, but having Vesper Lynd ,a traitor in the book, taking the place of Tracy Bond is just plain wrong." Remember, CR was Fleming's FIRST novel and his relationship with Vesper was far more defining to Bond of the novels than his relationship with Tracy. "The Blunt Instrument comment is too much. Who is she addressing? Certainly not the James Bond of the Ian Fleming’s books." To quote Fleming: "James Bond is a blunt instrument wielded by a government department..."
I hope come November 17th, you give CR a chance, it may just turn out to be the best Bond movie in years, or maybe not. But you don't know until you see the movie.
17 May 2006 10:31:18
Enough is enough. The creative liberties they're taking with CR have left intact the only "tried and true" thing about the James Bond series...James Bond. His world around him may be changed (by modernizing him, and for the better, a necessity since he's not believable as a Cold War era secret agent anymore, and bringing him back to at least a semblance of reality, where we and the masses can actually care about him for years to came, ensuring his longevity), but his essence will not.
Continuity? Simply not plausible given the four decades over which Bond and supporting characters have not aged, the glaring plot holes that spit in its face, and most of the movies' complete disregard for the supposed importance of past events anyway. See even Diamonds Are Forever for an immediate and absolute dismissal of its predecessor OHMSS, the chief cornerstone for those who prattle on incessantly about strict "continuity." If you *still* think there's continuity in the Bond series, then this is just a prequel.
"One, maybe two Bond movies left in him" before the general "coconscious" (consensus) would be that he is too old? That reasoning might have had merit in 2002, but it's 2006. Yes, Pierce Brosnan looks better than most his age, but for him to carry the role one or two more times would require Die Another Day 2 and Die Another Day 3. The "decade of Die Another Day" is not how I want Bond to die, because that's *exactly* what will kill Bond and solidify the franchise's image as a perpetually recycled self-parody in the minds of casual movie-goers. And forget the real fans, who would all but abandon such nonsense. CGI surfing, imaginary technology, *single* entendres, and frankly abysmal acting are the very things that should be purged from the Bond universe forever.
Daniel Craig's blonde hair? Roger Moore had light brown hair. Sean Connery wore a toupee. And you're complaining about dark blonde hair? "Short"? He's 5'11". Pierce is 6'0". Big deal. This is cinema, if an extra *foot* in height is truly needed (and I contend even an inch is not), you can make it happen. And then there's that whole acting thing. You know, the thing Craig probably has over all the other Bonds, save possibly Dalton, considering that he's a film actor by trade? Other pluses include his great voice, a danger and intensity not seen since Dalton, but with a coolness and arrogance not seen since (gasp! dare I say it?) Sean Connery. And he's fitter than Lazenby, who was fitter than the rest.
So what are we left with? Craig isn't pretty. Okay. Good job. Forget that he is still considered handsome (however "unconventionally" or "rough") enough to grace silly women's magazines' listings. He admittedly lacks the metrosexuality of Brosnan. But that's not enough to make me act like a child and start "petitions" (real life ones don't allow multiple signatures) to protest a film I have yet to see, two-thirds of which has yet to be shot. And Casino Royale could very well do worse than the Brosnan run. That doesn't necessarily mean anything, since they averaged just shy of 80 million in ticket sales worldwide, and it would take a loss of more than half of that to be deemed a commercial failure.
Besides, Hollywood is in a general slump right now. Standards change with the times (which is why the late 60s and 80s were "weak" for Bond, and the 90s strong). So you'd have to assume an infantile "movement" led by some angry, blindly partisan Brosnan fans could do some *severe* damage, even with the curiosity factor, the four year wait, and the new style that will undoubtedly attract new fans who, guess what, thought the last four outings were a joke, all factored in.
Face it. Brosnan will NOT "pull a Diamonds Are Forever". Lazenby quit, Craig probably will not. Connery returned after four years, Brosnan would be returning after six, seven, or more. Connery was in his forties, Brosnan is in his fities. Connery came back because they threw a lot of money to sleep walk and pretend to be James Bond, while Brosnan burned his bridges anyway, so the point is moot. And perhaps most importantly, might I add, Pierce was NOT fired. His contract expired, and was not renewed. Such is the way of life.
Look, I enjoyed Brosnan, whatever his shortcomings and weaknesses, but his time has passed. Move on, grow up, and face the (promising) reality: Daniel Craig IS James Bond 007.
17 May 2006 22:53:07
To Enough is Enough: All your arguments are so much bollocks. Craig is the ugliest duff they could have found to play the part. The idea of him playing Bond is a bigger joke than 'The Emperor's New Suit'. You're one of the people who would stare at the naked emperor and rant about wonderful he looks because that's what you want people to know you're thinking. Time to come down from the clouds of your Ian Fleming wet dreams. Bond is not supposed to look like an Albanian sewer contractor on holiday. Craig is a f*cking joke, and the only thing funnier is that you don't get it yet, you mincing dunce! You're right that Craig is Bond, but no one says we have to like it. So before you offer us another sophmoric 'deal with it', why don't you just f*ck off instead my love. Are we clear then my poofy friend? Bloody wonderful.
18 May 2006 02:23:28
Geat site. I agree, Craig doesn't appear to be a good choice for Bond; however, I think a lot of people are being too critical. Before we place him with the Lazenby fiasco, lets at least see the film (he deserves that much).
28 May 2006 00:34:53
30 May 2006 11:32:01
03 Jun 2006 11:19:37