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.


A duff Bond movie

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.


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.

Personal Choice


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.


Brosnan's last Bond 
Brosnan's last Bond was slightly over the top. Invisible cars etc. However it did have some gritty moments. Remember Bond having a beard & being tortured for several months ?.
 If the producers wanted to make the next film grittier all they had to do was make it with Brosnan still in the role. He easily had another film in him. That's what they did after Moore's Moonraker. Made a grittier film with the same actor. The producers have made mistakes before with casting. Getting an experienced and average looking George Lazenby in 1969. Then allowing Roger Moore to make one Bond too many in 1985. However the producers quickly & wisely corrected things.
Appointing Craig could be their biggest mistake, simply because it seems Barbara Brocali does'nt want to admit she made a mistake and sack Craig. Reviews say Craig is serious, broody and tough. That's simply because that's all he can do. He has'nt got the charm and sexiness of Connery, the wit and aplomb of Moore or the good looks and confidence of Brosnan. His voice is weak and delivery lacks conviction. He runs around a lot & does some of his own stunts, so what ? The action looks like stuff we've seen before, fist fights, chasers etc. There is not that extra something we expect from a Bond film & the leading man is Mr Average. We can foget about Brosnan returning. He will be in his mid 50's when the next Bond comes out. But Bond fans must unite to ensure the next film has the right actor. ie. not Craig.

"The best Bond since Connery." 
By my count, Craig is now the fifth actor to be dubbed, "The best Bond since Connery." (I think only David Niven has been denied the honor.)
If James Brolin had gotten the role in the 80's, you can bet he would've also been the 'best'. I think what people respond to most is the back to basics approach. There was similar hype and critical response prior to Goldeneye, The Living Daylights, and even For Your Eyes Only (to an extent). Each time there has been an unspoken hope that all subsequent Bond films will get things right. Unfortunately, I have seen Casino Royale, and do not share the optimism of critics. It doesn't really work as a Bond film, and what is left is an average spy film.
The two things most everyone has agreed on is that Craig does not come across as a 007, and the film is far too long. If the movie does not connect with general audiences, it will likely be because of those two reasons. Overall, I think this film actually works better if you adopt the "code name" theory which was suggested in 1967's Casino Royale. Then it makes sense for Dench to be M, and for Craig to be such an unconventional Bond. Otherwise, the film is simply not any fun- unless you're simply tired of Bond the superspy. (And I doubt the people that are shelling out for those new dvds are tired of the fantasy Bond.)

My biggest problem with Craig is, I just can't see the agent he portrays ever evolving into "James Bond". I think he works fine in the context of a "proto-Bond" story where he isn't supposed to be a suave, fully-fledged 007, but where do you take it from there? There has to be a point where the gadgets, flirting, humour, and fantasy return, and I don't see Craig fitting into that at all.

It has to be done
Bond movies have been going since 1962. The producers have made mistakes with casting before. Lazenby was too average looking & inexperienced while Moore carried on too long. But hey we all make mistakes. These mistakes were quickly and wisely rectified. But this time it seems Barbara Brocoli is not listening to huge public opinion & admitting she made a mistake. The film is out now. I'm boycotting it but have seen clips & read reviews. Craig seems to be trying to be mean, tough and moody. Probably because he can't do charm, wit and aplomb. His voice is soft and undistinctive, unlike a Connery or Moore. His face is dead pan and shows no emotion. A leading man playing Bond should have more screen presence. He seems to run around a lot. So what, even Moore did that & he was in his 50's. Brosnan could have starred in a gritty Bond, he is a very good actor & still in good shape. Everyone would have been happy if he had stayed. If he wanted more money, so what, he'd given nearly 10 years of his life to Bond. Everyone wants the same actor to play Bond for at least 10 years & we don't like changing Bond actors too frequently. But in this case it has to be done.

The real reason he is winning over critics.
I have nothing bad to say against Daniel Craig, but I think everyone has failed to mention the real reason he is winning over critics. This is basically the first time an actor has been given the freedom to work outside of the typical Bond formula. Craig is not being forced to toss out one-liners in every other scene, or go through the same motions that the previous actors were required to perform. Dalton or Brosnan could've been twice as good if they had been granted the same type of creative freedom. I do think it's unfortunate that the producers were unwilling to take similar chances with Brosnan's Bond. Even though I like Craig as an actor, I still don't think he was the best choice for the role. As someone mentioned, he is easier to accept as a raw agent than a polished 007.

When Bond #7 arrives
The break from tradition has obviously struck a chord with critics, who usually prefer to simply roll their eyes at each new Bond film. And it does make you wonder why EON played it so safe with Brosnan. His popularity in the role should have given them enormous freedom to reinvent the series as early as Tomorrow Never Dies. Instead, they acted as though they could only go in one direction with him, which is utter nonsense. For nearly 10 years, everyone referred to Brosnan as an ideal Bond- a perfect balance between Connery and Dalton. It's funny how quickly the fans like to turn on whoever filled the role last. It also happened with Lazenby, Moore, and Dalton. When Bond #7 arrives, I'm sure Craig will receive the same treatment.

"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 do have to update some of my other criticisms. 


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.



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.


Instantly Forgettable.

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......

Keep the Campaign Going
The clips I've seen of the new Bond movie look awful. Craig's voice is weak, dull and barely audible. His expressions and acting limited. Bond is supposed to be charismatic but Craig is not. Everyone knows he is ugly. Men and women agree with this. His body is all wrong, 5.11 is at least two inches too short. His bulked up body & it makes him look like a mini Stallone. He must work out 5 days a week to maintain that body. How is he going to save the world ? He's big and beefy when he should be lean and athletic like previous Bonds.

The producers appointed Craig shortly before filming began. He may have been a panic signing after other people turned down the role. Not one pole had Craig as a potential Bond. Craig himself said he did'nt want the part until he read the script. So maybe his weak performance is due to lack of motivation. Or maybe he's just not up to the job. He was never known as a dashing leading man before. Unlike Moore, Brosnan and even Dalton (remember 'Wuthering Heights').

The English media are trying to write good reviews. They do for every Bond film. Bond is a British institution & a well received Bond movie creates a feel good factor in the country. But the action looks average and everyone says the film is too long. It will make money, it's a Bond film after all. The massive publicity campaign will pay dividends. But millions of people are turned off by Craig.

The producers have made mistakes before. Appointing the inexperienced and average looking Lazenby & letting Moore make one film too many. They quickly corrected their mistakes. However this time it looks like they are refusing to bow to public opinion and sack Craig. This will result in the death of Bond. So fans need to keep the campaign going.

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:  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.
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.



Replaced by Some Thuggish Oaf

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 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.

Milton Krest

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?

Andy Serkis

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

A Dark Time to be a Bond Fan

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!

Exclusive Geek Clubs 
I strongly believe that the Bond fan forums are no different than many
other forums on the net in that they sometimes become exclusive geek clubs in
which you must tow the hip party line or be ostracized. It has been hip
to always say Dalton was closest to Fleming's vision and Brosnan is a wimp.
It's all total nonsense but the geek emperor has no clothes so hush hush with any disagreement.
I recall having to defend Brosnan as long as eight years ago on a fan forum because so many geeks unfairly criticized him constantly. As I mentioned before, there is a strong parallel between today's Bond fandom and the Star Wars fans in that they both take the
Eon's/Lucas' every decision as breathed from above and infallible. If you dare question then you're "negative" or not a "real fan".

Why is the world of Bond fandom awash in Dalton worshipping, Brosnan bashing fools? It's just like the Jar Jar Binks loving Star Wars geeks who praise the new films and attack fans like me who grew up on the originals. It just wrecks it for the fans like me. It's
impossible to even express an opinion on or without being ganged up on by the rabid fanboys.
They hated Brosnan from the get go. Now both sites have a "what if" retrospective on Dalton's never to be third outing. Umm, what if NOBODY CARES??? He is a great actor, and the Living Daylights is solid, but the man lacked the charm and the box office reflected it. If Dalton starred in Goldeneye I seriously doubt the franchise would have survived it.

Brosnan clearly did save the franchise back in 1995, and held it aloft in spite of lamer and lamer scripts. It's a crying shame he didn't get a proper swan song and now all we have is Daniel Craggy to look forward to. I'm actually selling off my Bond collection bit by bit now. I feel betrayed. It all has a bad taste in my mouth. I really will be boycotting Casino
Royale, and that means a lot coming from a guy who has gone to every premiere (sometimes even special advance screenings) since Goldeneye.

Mr Bond Your Time is Up

This Craig character isn't a soggy cigaette butt on Sean Connerys shoe.
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.

Put Pierce Brosnan's 007 Movies in Theaters Nov 17th

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. and


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 making good films and casting.

Makes No Sense To me!

This is the new Bond - new promo shots: Alternate version: 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.

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%.


Copyright © 2006  The Sinking Ship. All rights reserved.
Revised: 03/04/07.