The
Sinking Ship
New 007 Fans quick link
To make newer comments easier to find we created Quick Links to a separate page with the most recent entries.
Everyone knows CR was a duff Bond movie and Craig is all wrong for the
part. Even BB & MJW know it. The only good news for them is that it's made
money. There trying to rush release the next Bond movie for 2008 to try the
public to accept Craig. It's supposed to a continuation of CR, which means it
will be even more confusing. It will probably be even
worse than CR.
I URGE ALL OF THE MILLIONS OF BOND FANS TO BOYCOTT THE NEXT BOND MOVIE.
It will perform poorly and Craig may be sacked.
I know it's hard to comment on a film without seeing it. Therefore I would suggest we just read the reviews and watch the clips on TV. Rather than waste out money.
I decided to skip Bond 21 as far back as 2003, when I first heard they were thinking of replacing Brosnan. Now, I'm no Brosnan fanatic, but I didn't want to see another actor change so soon. I didn't visit any websites about it, and this was long before anyone decided to boycott. It was a personal choice, and it was my own. Now, maybe I'm just being stubborn at this point, but that's my choice too. I don't want to see an entirely new Bond series. I want to see the same one I grew up with continue. The point is, no one else has had any influence in my decision to skip Bond 21. If I allowed them to, I would probably listen to the reviews and just go see it! :) I agree with you that I can't accurately review a film I have not seen. But I have no interest in reviewing this film. I simply decided not to go.
I should also add that when I decided to skip Bond 21, I never dreamed that anyone else would feel the same way. I had no idea that it would become such a topic of debate among fans. But when people are going to the trouble of creating alternate 007 websites, there is obviously a portion of the fanbase that feels strongly about the decisions that have been made.
"CR comes at the expense of the previous 20 films"
"CR comes at the expense of the previous 20 films" This sums up my feelings exactly. I have nothing against Craig. I have nothing against Brosnan. If Craig had been picking up directly from the last film (as all the previous actors did), I would've gone to see it. But it bothers me that this film seems aimed at critics, non-fans, or kids who don't really like the previous 20 films. I don't like reading things like "thank God they did away with the fantasy, gadgets, over-the-top stunts, womanizing, one-liners, etc." Sorry, but that's what the series has always been and will eventually return to. Why should we reboot the entire thing just to appease people that don't even like Bond movies?
Blame George Lucas for starting this stupid prequel trend
This continues to be an interesting topic/debate- moreso than the actual film, imo. All of my friends over 30 went to Casino Royale expecting the next Goldfinger or Goldeneye. They were shocked to find it dull and lacking the kind of trademark fun of the series.
However, teens seem to think it's the greatest Bond movie ever made, and far better than the jokey movies of the past. In a way, it reminds me of Superman Returns. Kids thought it was epic and powerful, while adults seemed to ask, "What's fun about this?"
Bond is basically a comic book character, so it's not surprising to see him finally subjected to the modern day hero treatment. Kids today like for their heroes to be portrayed realistically and taken serious, even if it comes at the expense of sheer entertainment. I have no idea why that is, but it's interesting nonetheless. I'm sure the internet is a big factor, though. If you sit around for a year discussing the same film, you obviously need it to be taken seriously by those around you. Otherwise, you've just wasted a year of life on something you should've already outgrown. (And personally, I also blame George Lucas for starting this stupid prequel trend. LOL )
I’ve posted here before with my severe doubts about the direction the Bond
franchise was taking and the casting of Daniel Craig. While I will stick to my
guns on how shabbily the producers treated Pierce Brosnan, Samantha Bond and
John Cleese, in all fairness, I do have to update some of my other criticisms.
After waiting beyond the opening weekend, I went to see Casino Royale for
myself. I’m still no big fan of the re-boot or the origins approach, however, I
do have take back my criticism of Daniel Craig. He still looks like a punk boxer
to me and won’t win any beauty contests among the Bond actors, but he does
display a sense of humor, in the film, that was sadly lacking in any of the
trailers/previews. I will credit him with being a “tough as nails” Bond too.
It’s clear to see he threw himself into it and the sheer physicality is
impressive. His acting skill is evident too, particularly, in the shower scene
comforting Vesper after she helped him dispatch two nasty bad guys. It was an
unusually tender moment for a Bond film that worked well. Also, for the record,
I didn’t think the poker game scenes were boring or too much to sit through.
They captured the essence of the original Casino Royale novel.
So, my opinion, is he can work as tougher, darker sense of humor Bond and, yes,
dare I say it, I am looking forward to his return in 2008. With the origins
story out of the way, I hope they can put back Moneypenny, Q and some gadgets.
Brickhouse.
Lazenby the world owes you an apology.
George Lazenby the world owes you an apology. You were brilliant and charismatic. I had always thought your performance wasn’t quite there, not that you didn’t do a good job. Compared to Daniel Craig you sir are a master.
Daniel Craig is the worst possible Bond imaginable. Every scene was wrong.
The opening black and white was crap, the gun barrel was wrong as well. Opening
titles left a lot to be desired, the theme song instantly forgettable.
The first color part was OK, the helper Craig keep telling to pull his finger
away from his ear wasn’t creditable. In the age of Bluetooth the writers blew a
chance to do something creative instead pulling and old cliché of an inept
sidekick.
The construction chase was unbelievably stupid. Why he stole the Bulldozer was
never made clear. The guy he was chasing was amazing. I wish he had a bigger
part.
The embassy was disturbing. Why did Bond chase after this guy? Why not wait for
him to come out? And then why kill him? Sitting there I thought of a thousand
different ways to do it better.
The product placement became very annoying and obvious. The movie would stop on
a product. Most of the plot elements revolved around products placement.
Breaking in to M’s house and hacking her computer was out of place. Fleming’s
Bond always had respect for his superior. From the way she responded M
should have had him killed for knowing her name. Alluding to her name beginning
with the letter M was a little too MIB.
The Bahamas lack an engrossing quality. His Ford Focus, what the hell!!??!!
Everyone rents a better car than that when they travel on holiday.
Impersonating a valet and smashing the cars was a junk scene that provided no
purpose. Supposedly he used it as a diversion to sneak in. It would have made
them more alert and they would have been checking the video surveillance.
When he found the DVD with the surveillance he was looking for why didn’t he
take it with him?
Also why did he assume the cell phone call would be caught on video?
If their surveillance was that good they would have caught him before he entered
the room.
What is with the steering wheels on the wrong side of the cars?
The Miami air port scene was weak. Chasing a guy around the way he did would
have got him nabbed. Standing in front of a security door would have earned him
attention as well.
Cell phones were used as cheap elements in the plot to progress the story. Every meaningful answer came from a cell phone.
The big action sequence was directly ripped off from Indianan Jones movies and
die hard 2. The terrorist blowing himself up was a nice touch but not very
satisfying. Craig’s demented look after words was sickening.
The casino scene felt cheap as well. Anyway we have already seen Casino Royale
before in On Her majesty Secret service. According to the book it was where Bond
went every year as a sort of pilgrimage. -Vesper is given a passing mention as a
tombstone-
The Casino Royale in OHMSS was much more posh and felt alive with action. This
one felt rushed, like they made it over from a convention center.
Craig getting his first custom tux was awful, the film makers must have thought
this scene would prove he was Bond, but he looked even more awkward standing in
front of the mirror pretending he had never scene himself before. Someone
described it as a superhero dawning their costume for the first time. It should
be an exciting climax because we know who they are and who they are going to be.
It didn’t work here because he looked so out of place in the tux. On the floor
of the casino he looked like he should be parking cars or serving drinks.
The reasoning behind replacing Baccarat with poker is still lost on me.
From the book the bad guy with a gun to Bond back was gripping, as well as his
escape. Much more so than the poisoning.
In the book Felix’s introduction was a meaningful moment, as was his surprising
Bond with the funds to continue playing. It is lost in the movie .
The people threatening Le Chiffre were menacing but inexplicable. If they knew
where he was, then they knew why he was doing it as well. And why would they
even care if Bond had an earwig. If they took him for security, what could he
do, he wasn’t moving to stop them. Also Vesper's reaction to them being killed
in the shower was stupid. I know some have said it was touching moment. I was
annoyed with her.
Craig misses every scene where he was required to connect with a woman. When he
tired to act like he charmed the receptionist out of information the audience
winced. Sean Connery would have made it work.
The Girls stopping to ‘ogle’ him felt paid for.
The girl -sorry I don’t remember her name- killed in the hammock could have been
great, but she couldn’t connect with Craig either.
When Craig met Vesper on the train it went from bad to worse. No chemistry at
all. Psychoanalyzing each other just didn’t feel genuine. Eva Green’s accent was
odd.
The cheap shots at the older series with failed attempts at humor like
Moneypenny’s name and the name Craig gives Green in the car after the train,
should have been fun for the audience, it wasn’t.
This wasn’t Fleming’s Bond. Not Fleming’s Vesper. Not Fleming’s Mathis. Not
Fleming’s Felix......
I Am Not For Brosnan As Such..
I am not for Brosnan as such, what I would like to say is this looks like
another action flick running on the Bond name, to me this is not Bond! Craig
will never be a Bond no matter how many martinis and astons he gets behind, this
is XXX with Bond music, terrific but not what I expect from a Bond movie and not
one that will be joining my collection of Bond movies. 13 Nov
2006 19:13:28
Being Blonde Isn’t
A Problem For Me, Being Ugly Is.
I couldn’t believe it when I heard Craig was Bond. But assumed Barbara Broccoli
knew what she was doing. Then I heard about these sites & am pleased I’m not in
the minority. They say he's 6 feet, but he looks smaller. He's beefed up for the
role but still looks small. Being blonde isn’t a problem for me, being ugly is.
Men are supposed to want to be Bond. Well not me anymore. I've seen clips on T.V.
, his voice seems soft & lifeless. His expressions limited. He's wearing
expensive suits, tight swimming trunks, just about anything that will make him
look good, but he doesn’t. Where is the humour, the screen presence of a Moore
or Brosnan. The action looks no better than dozens of other U.S. action films.
The British press will try to write good reviews. After all Bond is British, we
don't want the Americans laughing at us. But i don't think there will be
anything new or exciting in the film. So I’ll be boycotting it.
13 Nov 2006 18:11:42
Bond Is Not Just Another
Generic Action Hero.
It has nothing to do with Brosnan- despite the movement to turn it into a
"Brosnan vs. Craig" debate. We simply prefer the character of James Bond that
led to the longest running film franchise of all time. Even Craig's staunchest
supporters have admitted that he is not playing that character in this film.
Instead, it's nothing more than Purvis and Wade's interpretation of what Ian
Fleming had in mind. But it takes far more than brooding and a serious approach
to fill 007's shoes. Bond is not just another generic action hero.
13 Nov 2006 17:00:33
Mass Hysteria Greeted GoldenEye
In 95.
Don't take the 'luvvie' metropolitan British critcis too seriously. They love
Daniel Craig and hate James Bond films. None of them displayed the vaguest Bond
knowlege in their reviews. One dizzy bint wrote that Craig was a more plausable
Bond because he had a good body. Surely a plausable Bond would have a plausable
body and not look like a steroid casualty. This mass hysteria greeted GoldenEye
in 95 although don't expect anyone to be too quick to point that out. I watched
a Bond special last night with old and new clips. I got zero Bond 'vibe' from
Craig. Absolutely nothing. Looks like we're in the wilderness now for a few
films. 10 Nov 2006 17:19:06
It Just Seems Ridiculous Once You Strip Away The Surrounding Fantasy.
I just don't care to see Bond portrayed as a dark character. It somehow makes
him seem irrelevant, considering it's no longer the 1950's. If we're supposed to
take the film seriously, why is this assassin taking time to play poker with the
villain? It just seem ridiculous once you strip away the surrounding fantasy.
10 Nov 2006 13:06:15
I See It As
The Death Of The Bond Film Franchise I Love!
It looks as if this film will apppeal to those who dislike the Bond films. What
about the rest of us? I'm still not sure that I want to see some ugly 40 year
old psychopath "young" Bond portrayed by Daniel Craig. Many obviously do. I'm
sure these people are just seeing it as a great action film. I see it as the
death of the Bond film franchise I love! 10 Nov 2006 10:31:44
The Critics Appear To Be As Polarized As The Fans.
"Best reviews of the year"? The critics appear to be as polarized as the fans.
This is clearly a love/hate film, which doesn't bode well for mainstream
audiences. 09 Nov 2006 17:26:50
The First 'Joe Shmoe' Bond.
Check out this clip from CR:
http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/media/player.php?id=3896 The final clip -
the one with Bond and Vesper in the car - shows how unlike Bond Craig really is.
He's acting like a normal person - I get no sense he's ACTING like Bond.
Seriously. Has no alpha male or stylish vibe. Remove any mention of the name
'Bond' from that clip and Craig could be playing anyone. There's no sense he IS
James Bond. Craig is the first 'Joe Shmoe' Bond. And I won't mention his 'look'
in that clip! 08 Nov 2006 10:16:26
Average and Disappointing.
Another negative review has surfaced. It not only calls the film a "mess", but
again repeats the mantra that this is "not James Bond". You really have to
question the validity of those early reviews which did nothing but praise the
film to excess. I wouldn't be surprised if they were either studio shills, or
simply fans at heart that don't want the film to flop. The telling thing about
the 'negative' reviews is that they are not bashing the film. They simply find
it average and disappointing.
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2006/11/bond_in_paris.php
07 Nov 2006 16:47:12
Bond: The New Adventures
The reviews appear to be falling into two categories: 'Bland' or 'Overly
Positive'. It's surprisingly similar to the fan reaction, only in this case, the
insiders that are calling it 'average' are generally known for being frank. I
think I've been more alienated by the "pro-Craig" nonsense than his actual
casting. The implication is that you can only be a fan of something if you
continue to support 'new product'. But I consider myself a pretty big Star Trek
fan, despite the fact that I only enjoy the adventures of the original crew. And
though I'm somewhat obsessive about the Indiana Jones trilogy, I know virtually
nothing about the Young Indy series. Ironically, both the filmmakers and fans
have asked that this film be regarded as the start of a new series. Fine. Yet
when you try to indulge them, and admit you probably won't go see "Bond: The New
Adventures", they get upset. 06 Nov 2006 15:28:15
"Wow...did the Times really say Craig is "brutishly ugly"?
"Wow...did the Times really say Craig is "brutishly ugly"? And this is supposed
to be one of the positive reviews? LOL" Yes, it shows you how much the Bond
franchise had declined when the actor playing Bond is described as "brutishly
ugly." All very depressing. The film is released next week so let's hope people
don't accept this new brutishly ugly Bond. 07 Nov 2006 09:09:11
Bond: The New Adventures
The reviews appear to be falling into two categories: 'Bland' or 'Overly
Positive'. It's surprisingly similar to the fan reaction, only in this case, the
insiders that are calling it 'average' are generally known for being frank. I
think I've been more alienated by the "pro-Craig" nonsense than his actual
casting. The implication is that you can only be a fan of something if you
continue to support 'new product'. But I consider myself a pretty big Star Trek
fan, despite the fact that I only enjoy the adventures of the original crew. And
though I'm somewhat obsessive about the Indiana Jones trilogy, I know virtually
nothing about the Young Indy series. Ironically, both the filmmakers and fans
have asked that this film be regarded as the start of a new series. Fine. Yet
when you try to indulge them, and admit you probably won't go see "Bond: The New
Adventures", they get upset. 06 Nov 2006 15:28:15
Barbara Broccoli
Has Really Spit In Her Dads Face.
Pierce Brosnan is still the best James Bond ever next to Sean Connery that is.
Barbara Broccoli has really spit in her dads face for choosing Daniel Craig. and
saying that Daniel Craig is the best James Bond of all time. I saw a preview of
casino royale day before yesterday and I thought this movie is stupid and
boring. Pierce was promised to do a fifth James Bond. But instead he was lied to
and betrayed by sony,mgm,eon productions and Daniel Craig. I really hope this
movie bombs at the boxoffice big time. Also I hope Barbara Broccoli has a real
serious wake up call and that nobody wants to see this gay movie and bring back
the real James Bond [Pierce Brosnan] Daniel Craig wouldn’t know how to play
James bond if his life depended on it. I really hope they bring back Pierce
Brosnan back. He loves playing him and he was born for the role of James Bond.
26 Oct 2006 03:00:19
Perfect Time to get out of Bond
We read you little complaint about the dvds. Sorry but you don’t stand much of a
chance. Me and the wife feel for your plight. We got the attaché case 2 weeks
back. Let me tell ya its bloody brilliant. Better than the picture looks.
You might want to buy the case and sell the dvds on ebay then put the R1 dvds in
the case.
For a yank you seem alright. Take my advice buy the dvd when they come out, you
will feel a great burden lifted from ya. We are done with Bond damn does it feel
good. Bond is dead forget about him. Sorry to say it is true. Once you get the
dvds and believe me they are worth it for restoration on the first 9 movies.
Once you have em you will feel better.Now is the perfect time to get out of
Bond.
Its not just the poofter friendly Craig who put it in the crapper the idiot
children running the show don’t know shite. We would have sat down to any Bond
movie before this.
I just watched the trailer for Casino Royale and boy was it lame.
It looked like another standard shotem up thriller with an unremarkable blond
guy of average build running and shooting people aka Bourne Identity style.
Where is the suave cool sophisticated Bond we all know?
He's been replaced by some thuggish oaf.
Mr Craig looks so uncomfortable I actually felt sorry for him. He clearly did
not believe he was Bond and looked what he was ....an actor trying to play Bond
but not being Bond.
He looked wooden and out of his depth. As for the interaction between Bond and
Vespa or whatever her name is....unconvincing again. Stilted dry and forced.
I found myself not caring about them or their relationship.
I've never been a Brosnon fan myself so where does it go from here?
There's a finite life span for all things. Maybe best just to call it quits and
let Mr Bond hang up his 00 badge and retire to the bar for a martini
The Sooner He Is Gone The Better
I too am disappointed and by Craig’s casting in the role. And I am glad to
see that others feel the same way. I am also pleased to see that the Craig
backlash has not subsided. And I don’t think that it ever will.
Despite my misgivings I was willing to give Craig a chance. That was until this
morning when I was able to view the most recent and full length trailer. To say
that I was shocked would be a complete understatement. Craig looks more like
he’s imitating Connery playing Bond than playing Bond himself! I also was
completely unaware of
Craig’s ‘Screw You’ comment with regard to potential fan reaction to the film.
What an arrogant man! I find it highly unlikely that this film will go over well
with the general public never mind Bond fans. The sooner he is gone the better.
The Ultimate
Inanimate Actor?
Daniel Craig - the ultimate inanimate actor? Watch the scene in the full trailer
where Craig says "you noticed." His face barely moves. He's almost inanimate.
Watch the bit where Craig is sipping the wine and says "well I wouldn't be good
at my job if I did." Again, he's inanimate. He has no expression on his face.
He's stiff and lifeless. Is this how he's going to act the role? He's utter
crap. Seriously, watch the two clips and look at his face. It's awful acting.
Totally lifeless. Appalling. He should go back to drama school and learn how to
act with facial expression. It might help him look less stiff. Three Bond films
of Mr Stiff - no thank you.
Clearly NOT
Going to be a Bond Movie
I daresay CR is going to be a clever and well-made movie, but it is clearly NOT
going to be a Bond movie. Don't we have enough earthy, gritty, violent action on
TV and the big screen as it is? Isn't there room for a bit of escapism,
tongue-in-cheek humour, heroism, suavity; something that's family-friendly with
references to sex going over most kids' heads anyway? I have seen all the Bond
movies in the cinema since the age of 10 with TSWLM, and, though I had my doubts
about LTK, I think now is the time to end this tradition.
Boring and Hobo-like
I think Craig looks like crap. I've always found him boring and hobo-like, now
he's James Bond. You couldn't make it up. Those pretentious hacks at Eon have
killed Bond for me with Craig and the hysterical comments they've made lauding
this film. Screw them. They won't get another penny off me. I used to like being
a Bond fan but with places like CBn ruined by aggressive pro-Craig oddballs it
all leaves a sour taste in the mouth. If Barbara Broccoli ever sold up I might
be interested again but right now I'm through with James Bond. They know exactly
where they can stick it.
Craig Radiates
"Oafishness"
The moment you saw the other Bonds you knew they would be good at the part,
there was something in them that radiated "Bondiness"; Craig radiates
"oafishness". In my opinion there is only one actor today, who is handsome
enough and looks the part his name is Zen Gesner; go and look for his pictures
in the internet, and see for yourselves that he is handsome enough (I would even
go and say he's more handsome then Pitt) and macho enough.
He was a tough, leathery man in his early fifties. He looked hard and fit, and the faded blue jeans, military-cut shirt and wide leather belt suggested that he made a fetish of doing so – looking tough. The pale brown eyes in the weather-beaten face were slightly hooded and their gaze was sleepy and contemptuous. The mouth had a downward twist that might be humorous or disdainful – probably the latter - ………. ….this man likes to be thought a Hemingway hero. I’m not going to get on with him. Ian Fleming describing Milton Krest. If Fleming had wanted a weather beaten leathery face for his alter ego why didn’t he write him that way?
Only way Craig can be Bond is if he’s doing a Andy Serkis and will be removed digitally replacing his image with Sean Connery’s
I just saw the new trailer. I'm even more certain of my opinion of Craig and
the reboot. A disaster. This is not Bond no matter how loudly they blast the
theme song. I couldn't buy it, not for a second.
James Bond isn't a thuggish killing machine.
James Bond isn't a German swimsuit model who waxes his body hair.
James Bond doesn't look like Solomon Grundy and Steve McQueen's love child
sucking lemons and glaring constantly.
James Bond doesn't get his hair cut at Dolph Lundgren's barbershop.
Goodbye class, charm and sophistication, hello Gen-Y Bond. He's kickin' ass and
takin' names baby. Pathetic.
Craig is a completely un-charming ape in a tux spouting wooden lines. There were
several close-ups of Craig in the new trailer that literally made me cringe.
Bleary eyed. Pouting with that irritating lemon suck expression. His
steroid-pumped biceps on his short stubby arms. That dreary depressing voice
lacking all charm and charisma. It isn't possible to cast anyone less
appropriate than Craig.
So many people trashed poor Lazenby, but he's ten thousand times superior to
Craig. I was never too fond of Moore's interpretation of Bond either but he too
will rank far above Craig in my mind. This isn't about freaking blonde hair any
more than Carrot Top as
Bond would be about orange hair. Craig is wrong from the tip of his head to the
soles of his feet, wrong inside and out. WRONG.
I will not be paying one thin dime of my hard earned money or wasting two hours
of my life on Casino Royale, this I assure you. It's a dark time to be a Bond
fan.
Putting Myself up for the Role
I am seriously considering putting myself up for the role. I have dark hair - OK, so it's disappearing on the top, but that never stopped Connery. Fair enough, I'm only 5' 6", but that can be explained (or ex-planed) by an opening scene involving Bond (me) jumping from a nose-diving plane with a faulty parachute that deploys only seconds from the ground. I think Daniel Craig is great. So many of us can now actually say that we look more like James Bond than the guy acting him!
This Craig character isn't a soggy cigaette butt on Sean Connerys shoe.
Flop.
Short ,blond and none too attractive so the polls say.
But BB will keep him for another one otherwise she'd look a right idiot if she
did a Lazenby on him.
Goodbye Mr Bond your time is up.
Dear National Association of Theater Owners,
There are many loyal movie goers who would love to see Pierce Brosnan return as
James Bond 007. Thanks to EON and Sony Pictures, that does not appear to be a
realistic request any longer.
Would theater owners throughout the country consider putting one of Pierce
Brosnan's 007 movies in theaters during the same opening weekend as Casino
Royale?
That way, those of us who have no interest in watching Casino Royale and paying
our hard-earned money to movie executives who do not care about the viewing
public can not only watch our favorite James Bond, can also let the corporate
executives see which actor we are willing to support with our money.
I hope that you will take my suggestion into consideration. My wife and I have
patiently waited four years for Pierce Brosnan to wear the tuxedo and it would
be wonderful to be able to see him back on the silver screen once again.
Regardless, we have no intention to either buy tickets or DVD's of Casino Royale
after the shabby treatment that he received from EON and Sony.
Thank you for your consideration.
**editors note~ This is copy of a letter sent to National
Association of Theater Owners
Great idea. A win win for the theater owners.
nato@natodc.com and infocusmagazine@mindspring.com
Craig = Death of
Franchise
I must thank you for being a voice for the sane and rational James Bond
fans. I'm not speaking of arrogant condescending fanboys on the major
Bond sites, but the true fans of the films.
After many months have past since the revelation that Daniel Craig is the new
James Bond I am still stunned and saddened by the news. Though the later Brosnan
films lacked
the scripts I really desired he was always a joy to watch as Bond. I've never
witnessed such enthusiasm for Bond since Goldeneye premiered. Sadly, I may never
witness that again.
There is no support for Craig anywhere but on the fanboy message boards.
Literally everybody I know without exception who has seen Daniel Craig thinks
he's a dreadful choice for the role of James Bond. I've never been less enthused
about a new 007
film. I've gone to the theater to see every Bond movie since A View To A
Kill, and watched all the others on tv my entire life but Casino Royale
will never have a seat filled by this ex-fan. And don't even get me started on
the idiotic and blasphemously insulting reboot plot of Casino Royale. What the
hell is Barbara Broccoli smoking?
R.I.P. Mr. Bond.
We're about to witness a catastrophic drop in ticket sales that will make the
days of License to Kill look like Thunderball in comparison. I could just cry,
or perhaps vomit. I think I'll do both.
Daniel Craig is to James Bond what Jar Jar Binks is to Star Wars.
A
Drearier Actor You Could Not Hope To Find
To quote Barbara Broccoli: "Fans are going to love him (Craig) they just don't
know him yet." Er, DUH Barbara! I've been aware of Craig for years. A drearier
actor you could not hope to find. He looks as much like James Bond as Phillip
Seymour Hoffman does Batman. Good luck rebuilding your shattered fanbase in a
few years. Or perhaps you should just sell-up and not concern yourself with
things you don't understand...like making good films and casting.
This is the new Bond - new promo shots: http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j246/leonthepro_jreno/hirescover.jpg Alternate version: http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/8486/craigempirecover2700x560qy5.jpg Craig looks old - like in his 50s in that Empire photo and yet he's Bond on his first mission? Makes no sense to me!
It's What Fleming Wrote After All
I’m wondering what the point of the reboot was. Ok, Casino Royale is the first James Bond story. But it is not where “Bond becomes Bond”. He was Bond before it and he was Bond after it. Now talk of the next movie. EON says they will not remake Bond movies already made. They know it would completely piss off everyone of the fans if it happened. Without Bond’s story following some of the original one what the point of any of it? That is what Fleming wrote after all.
Pierce Brosnan's Long and Winding Road To Bond.
I, like any other James Bond fan with taste, wanted EON productions to keep
Pierce Brosnan. And I definitely did NOT want them to go with the worst possible
choice, Daniel Craig!!!
Anyway, I wanted to let you know that I came across a great on-line article
about Pierce Brosnan's Bond-to-be days before he actually did become Bond.
It talks about how polls that had been asking who the next James Bond should be
back in the 1980's always had Pierce Brosnan #1 by a landslide.
Pierce Brosnan's Long and Winding Road To Bond.
http://www.klast.net/bond/pb_road.html
About the polls
“After the release of Octopussy in 1983, Moore was once again making noises
about not returning to the role of Bond. US Magazine asked readers in October of
that year to vote on who should be the next Bond. 14 contenders were nominated,
such as Tom Selleck, Jeremy Irons, Mel Gibson, and former TV Saint Ian Oglivy.
Pierce Brosnan won the poll in a landslide victory, with 46% of the vote. The
next runner up, British actor Lewis Collins from The Professionals, received
11%.”
“In April and May 1994 the search for a new James Bond was put to a public
vote. A poll was taken on the tabloid TV show Hard Copy, with viewers calling in
to a 900 number, at 95 cents a call. Pierce Brosnan won handily with 85% of the
vote, Mel Gibson a very distant second with 7%. Entertainment Tonight polled
under the same conditions, and concluded with Brosnan the favorite as Bond, with
73% (over 10,000 votes), and Gibson again second at 16%.”
