The
Sinking Ship
New Towers Originals quick link
To make newer comments easier to find we created Quick Links to a separate page with the most recent entries.
We have heard a lot recently about EON’s attitude real or imagined towards
minorities. A far more egregious transgression is transpiring as we speak.
Through friends of the site from around the world we have been made aware of the
deliberate misrepresentation of Daniel Craig in the foreign ad campaigns. One
striking example is the Russian GQ magazine where headline of the article inside
the magazine announces to the potential Russian audience that Daniel Craig has
“always wanted to be Bond since he was a little boy”, an out right lie. We know
that it is a lie because Daniel’s Mother admitted that Daniel was not interested
in Bond as a little boy, although she remember most of his friends being
obsessed with the phenomena. It also should be remembered that Daniel Craig
couldn’t be bothered to attend a Bond movie in the theater since 1973.
The deliberate misrepresentation of Craig to a foreign audience is a heinous
crime.
This second class treatment of a people because it is assumed they are
undereducated, unable to comprehend the language, and are oblivious to the
happenings in the English world outside their boarders. This is upsetting no
matter who the actor is that they are attempting shill.
Also of grave concern is the 500 prints of the film being foist on the
population of India. One report remarked it was a risky venture to do so,
however they did not elaborate as to why it was a risk. It is completely
conceivable that this is an attempt to buffalo and undermine the rich movie
market in India. Apparently with very stiff competition from a popular Indian
movie the weekend after Casino Royale opens, the goal of the producers is to
loot the box-office opening weekend. Truly the people of India should be
offended by this affront there their sovereignty. It is a despicable attitude
that has prevailed in dealing with our fellow fans in foreign countries. If it
were not for the already clear reasons of the abomination to the Bond legacy we
would have boycotted this movie on these moral grounds alone.
After an unseasonably early flood of supposedly positive film reviews, we
were made to wonder about that nature of said releases. First off, though
abundant in their praise for Daniel Craig’s performance there credibility is a
lacking in these reports since several newspapers have made it public that they
are not able to reveal their reviews until after the film is released. Making
these early reviews of questionable lineage. We also have been made aware of a
small snippet of a report that claims bias on the part of those leaking their
reviews. Whether this is true of not, we don’t know. Although it does seems
likely.
After reading the early reviews there is a disturbing trend of heaping
gratuitous praise on Craig. However when you read their description of the movie
and it’s scenes, it becomes evident that Casino Royale is lacking all the
hallmarks that make up the composition of a Bond movie. The very physical
interpretation these reviewers as an audience received from Craig is not that of
James Bond.
Many of the reviews harp on just one of Fleming’s descriptions of Bond as cruel.
They Expound upon how much like a killer Craig looks, which is a mistake. Though
Bond was a killer he was not obviously so, nor was he a cad. More likely is that
Fleming bequeathed Bond an attribute that he had probably personally seen in the
faces of actual agents of His Majesty’s Secret Service.
If you have ever known people of this caliber, then you know they are multi
faceted, intelligent, smart, witty, and quick on their feet as well as their
mind. And if you have never been privileged to meet people of such quality (the
odds are you have met them but never knew it) then the closest to which such
capable, patriotic citizens can be described is akin to the ‘big guy’ with a
heart of gold; we all have met someone like this at one time or another.
They are generally a sweet person, easy to get along with and a pleasure to know
but once or twice you may find them at a bad moment at catch a glimpse of
something deeper, a face beneath the face. The presence of malevolence, a
cruelty we all are capable of when push comes to shove.
Yes, it is shocking to see someone’s face change perceptibly and know that there
is something they will not hesitate to use force to protect. Normally it is on
account of their children, I have seen many faces of the meekest parents become
a mask of death where their children’s well being is concerned.
Without question we have already seen the cruelty Fleming had wanted in his
alter ego, the determination and grit suddenly present in previously serene
features. Surely we all can recall at least one moment that lingers in our
memory from the tenure of Pierce Brosnan, Sean Connery, and Roger Moore (Timothy
Dalton and George Lazenby as well, although they have a lesser body of work from
which to chose); you can remember the exact moment where their expression
changed just enough to let us, the audience, know there was nothing that could
stop what was about to happen.
Ian Fleming had many more facets to his creation than that of a cruel ogre and
bargain basement thug as Craig has solely chosen to interpret him. There isn’t
one member of the lamest Campus or Mall security team (no offence to all members
of good Campus and Mall security details) who wouldn’t mark Daniel Craig’s Bond
as a problem and have him secured before his mission could be accomplished.
If we expound further, most of the people doing the reviewing admit to, in some
fashion or other, not liking previous Bond movies and applaud the drastic
departure undertaken. Many of these good reviews oddly enough completely ignore
the deficits in the movie that even the most fervent Pro-Craig propagandist
openly admits to. In truth these overly congratulatory pieces of pulp fiction
are probably in a direct response to the initial negative media coupled with
publicity of the Craig Not Bond website.
It could indicate a greater concern over dissatisfaction to the casting of
Craig. It may also prove to be a part of the publicity campaign blitzing the
media in hopes of cajoling an audience into attendance. From current direction
of the marketing, it seems certain that the studio is convinced it is the
opening weekend or nothing as far as the box-office is concerned. We as
discrimination consumers should not give way to such false seeding of the
ethers, we should stand firm on our ground. Every report agrees that Craig is
not Bond, rather a poorly conceived and executed Bourne clone masquerading under
a false pretenses as James Bond 007.
Sure, some have already complimented Craig’s performance, however keep in mind
that no matter how well he may or may not performs they always qualify the
compliment with a “for this new type of Bond” or similar sentiment.
The desecration of the legacy that we suspect to be occurring has happened, it
is now a fact. Do not forget these same people lauding Craig, lauded Pierce a
few short years ago. What has changed you may ask, nothing aside from the actor
currently in favor with the producers. James Bond is a special character who
found an unexpected home in all of our hearts. No matter who your favorite Bond
is you know the essence of the character, this new direction has abandoned this
essence and mocks all that came before.
If any of us have momentary laps of judgment and do see Casino Royale at the
theater, I ask you to remember Craig words, “Just go see it.” and hold him
accountable. If for any reason you are not happy with Daniel Craig or Casino
Royale demand a refund, complain to the theater owners, call and write your
newspapers to let them know there are Bond fans greatly distressed over this
abomination.
The writing on the wall is plain to see, Daniel Craig is not Bond and Casino
Royale is not a Bond film. In the end if there is enough public outcry and
rejection of this amalgamated, generic Bond the exit strategy will be for Craig
to bow gracefully out leaving him these platitudes to point to as declaring
himself a success. Regardless if he chooses to avail himself of this parachute,
he is still being damned by faint praise. The same people who now praise him,
condemned Timothy Dalton’s portrayal for the same humorless “gritty” elements
being condoned now.
The Sony advertising scheme is a curiosity. Their relationship with the new
Bond movies raises many questions. If you don’t know it already, Sony bought out
MGM and what ever other holdings were necessary to become EON’s partner. This
was a coup for Sony because they coveted the Bond franchise for years. Now that
they finally had their hands on it there was internal trouble with EON.
EON was floundering and directionless, by their own account they didn’t know
what to do after Die Another Day, which is a shame because any number of
talented writers (as has been demonstrated here)
could have provided Bond with a new direction and imaginative stories with out
upsetting or even changing the status quo. The Bond movie franchise was unique
for so many reasons; one of them being its ability to change with the times and
their featuring the newest most imaginative gadgets was always a draw as well.
EON settling on the new direction they have is a conundrum; their idea to
restart the series comes years too late. They are following a fad that has
already become passé.
The early 00’s of this new century has had a plethora of rebooted and restarted
images in everything from TV to books and movies. Some of them have been
successful, which perhaps is why EON found the idea so seductive, however many
of these rebooted ideas have fallen by the wayside rather then hitting their
mark, causing them to be deemed unsustainable by the market.
Sony stepped into a position with the Bond franchise they had wanted for years
only to find an entropic mess. That is to say EON had succumbed to the cruel
mistress that is entropy.
Many would say, and there is indeed some evidence to support it, that after
Cubby Broccoli died the franchise was without leadership and the children who
inherited the responsibility of production were ill prepared and ill equipped to
take charge such a as they did.
What Sony saw on the first day of taking stock of EON, was that EON had sadly
become a mess. The lofty franchise they had so many hopes of was mired in a
quagmire, clueless and quibbling. Strangely enough the star of the franchise,
Pierce Brosnan, was doing more in the way of finding direction and laying the
ground work for the next production than the people employed as producers.
The direction the producers finally settled on is a lazy feckless one. The
reboot of the series is a half hearted enterprise. The decision to purge the
only things that had made the series successful is a mistake as well.
EON’s impression that they could wipe the slate clean and start from scratch
producing whatever they chose to is woefully incorrect. James Bond is too well
known, no matter how hard they try to wash away the marks, the producers find
the inscriptions they struggle to erase are indelible and will never go away.
Sony’s tact or lack there of is especially notable. Watching how Sony has
handled this film also gives rise to speculation that they are not entirely on
board with EON’s decisions.
Sony is huge corporation, they have produced many successful movies. Spider-Man
springs instantly to mind. Never before have they handled the advertising in
such a manner. The attitude one gets from the current situation is that they
know they are whoring out a commodity. It feels like the trade off for Barbara
getting her way is Sony getting a safety-net, one that guarantees Sony will lose
no money however it turns out. Hardly a vote of confidence on Sony’s part.
The release of their own Casino Royal trailer that goes to great pains to
feature Sony products speaks the strongest. This shows contempt. Contempt for
the few remaining Bond fans that planed to stick this disaster out. Contempt for
the movie going public and movie buffs who they will try to snooker into
watching a nothing more that a Sony commercial.
It is unimaginable such and attitude would prevail with Spider-Man. Perhaps this
attitude being so prevalent here shows more than Sony intended us to see.
All of this coupled with the fact that it has been Sony executives who have been
out there every step of the way forcing the availability of previews and making
announcements of the delay in production for Bond 22. Means that how this all is
going to play out in the next few months should be very interesting to watch.
We’ve struggled to answer the question of ‘why would Sony OK Daniel Craig’s
hiring let alone this ill-conceived reboot’. Well the first answer to be spouted
out by those who will blather such, is that Sony was convinced by Craig’s
previous performances and wholeheartedly supports the refreshing idea of the
reboot.
If you picked up a press report today, sure enough it will have the conforming
and confirming diatribe that Sony executives are fully in support of said
changes.
However if you look closer and do a little research you will find a completely
different story.
When Sony took over they inherited a situation where MGM and EON productions
were publicly fighting over the franchise, EON production, more accurately
reportedly as Barbra Broccoli was insisting on changes (which have now
occurred). Where as MGM wanted at least one more Bond film with Pierce Brosnan
in the lead, after all the movies were unprecedented money makers, also do not
discount the Bond DVD market which has paid off handsomely for the studio.
As far as MGM was concerned the next Brosnan Bond was sure thing and you never
sneer at a sure thing, you do your best to make sure it happens.
Perhaps the success Brosnan brought to the franchise gave the EON producers the
wrong impression that somehow they were the ones responsible for it.
It has been shown before that the production values can be considered secondary
on a Bond movie, where as the leading man makes or breaks the movies. Someone
wrote to us explaining that a successful James Bond is an actor you can enjoy
watching regardless of whether the movie is any good. That is the indefinable
part of the equation Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan so successfully harnessed,
they connected with the audience, the audience wanted to like them and was more
than willing to pay to watch them.
When Sony took charge first thing they had to do was straighten this mess out,
apparently the decision was made to have no more public fighting, then to push
ahead with the production of the next Bond movie.
Now this is where it gets tricky, Sony (from reliable reports wanted Pierce
Brosnan back for the next movie) reportedly talking to Brosnan about it as late
as September 2005. They wanted Brosnan back probably for the same reasons MGM
did. When EON balked at this idea, Sony’s alternative was NOT Daniel Craig, of
whom his sole supporter was Barbara Broccoli. Sony instead wanted to consider
other actors they considered more suitable for the role and therefore more
bankable. Each one was rejected in turn by Barbara for various reasons, some of
which are completely cockamamie in retrospect. The standards which Barbara held
the other contenders to were somehow irrelevant where Daniel Craig was
considered.
Why did Sony let Craig happen if he was not their choice?
Why all of these decisions happened we believe comes down to contractual clause
invoked by Barbra Broccoli.
The purported clause is they (EON) have the right to make all creative
decisions, including casting and script. If this is true it could have forced
Sony into a position of support with no other option aside from not making the
movie at their disposal.
Would EON have forced the issue in such a way?
It seems very likely they did just that.
Sony is a big company why would they let them get away with it, won’t there be
consequences?
Yes there will be consequences. IF Casino Royale fails to meet studio
expectations it is reasonable to expect that there will be dire consequences
quickly implemented.
Unfortunately for Daniel Craig all of the consequences are going to come down on
his head, he is already being positioned for it. His next role is likely one of
scapegoat. It is now unavoidable; the advertising campaign is centered on him.
The decisions for the direction are being clearly laid at Craig’s doorstep.
Right now there are enough breadcrumbs out there that when followed they will
point an accusatory finger at Daniel Craig.
Daniel’s head is in the noose, however rightly or wrongly, the box-office for
the next Bond movie will be a referendum on Craig. This is not completely fair,
EON is the party that should be called to account more than Craig. Just as when
some people try to blame Pierce Brosnan or Timothy Dalton for perceived failures
in their movies when the real culprits are behind the cameras. The real culprit
for every short coming is not the hired help rather the people who consider
themselves as a permanent part of the landscape.
If/When Casino Royale fails we should take it upon ourselves to condemn the rightful party. Condemn the people behind the decisions that led to the bludgeoning of a beloved icon.
Second Trailer Review Part II: The Story They Want To Tell has Already Been Told
Like many of you out there we watched the new trailer, to our disappointment
they did exactly what they shouldn’t do. The Focus was on Craig’s odd looks and
what we can only postulate is supposed to be the trappings of a love story. The
placement and bombastic nature of the action sequences seems as if they were
meant to distract from the lack of a real story. This is doomed to be a
fruitless effort because of the lack of a likable leading man. With a likeable
man as the focus the rest of the events would have fallen in to place without an
exaggerated effort.
For several reasons this is not a good trailer. There were so many options to
market this. Instead they played up to the differences that fans have been
complaining about since the start of this fiasco. The Casino Royale trailers are
indiscernible from any other run of the mill action movie trailer, save for the
mention of 00 and the theme music blaring away trying convince the audience this
is indeed a Bond movie, although all of your other instincts are telling you
differently.
One of the first reasons has to be the disturbing bathroom beat down is still
very wrong for the series.
The second kill comes off very badly as well. In the first few seconds it is
made blatantly clear Casino Royale is not a Bond film. In particular the second
killing is completely out of nature for James Bond, even considering the darkest
moments in Fleming’s tomes. Part of the colossal mistakes is the second
target/victim is unquestionably a more likeable character than Craig’s. Surely
they didn’t have to kill him, how about a nice cup of tea and ‘we’ll discuss
where you went wrong’. You know, keep it very British.
Both these brutal, thuggish killings are a fundamental departure in the wrong
direction. Especially considering Craig’s droll comments, he portrays a
sociopath not a patriotic servant of Her Majesty’s Secret Service.
The only success of this trailer is Craig’s portrayal a callous bum, which might
have been ok for Mafia hitman or the opening introduction of villain James Bond
must hunt down, however is totally inappropriate for the embodiment James Bond.
Finally we get past the dreary black and white film, where even in the shadows
Craig looks unfortunate.
The next barrage of images is meant to convey one thing- ACTION!
Well, action was never considered the problem by the detractors. I don’t think
there were many complaints voiced “Oh, Daniel Craig… He’s a character actor. He
doesn’t know how to do action.” or “Oh!! Eon killed off the action.”
We all know if Bond were portrayed by beagle there would be action on the
screen.
No, action was never a primary concern. The primary concern has always been more
along the lines of Craig’s inappropriateness for the role, the disregard of the
history of the character and the possibility of the ruination of everything 007
had been.
Although there was a build up from the action sequences, the rest of the movie
trailer never followed through on it.
A hook was bated for the movie going publics, however the bait used was a more
than a little past its prime. This trailer really didn’t seem to know where it
wanted to go. What it portrayed is a mystery as well.
Craig does not deliver Bond in this trailer. (as we hear it neither does he
deliver Bond in Casino Royale) Don’t know who he was playing, but it sure as
hell wasn’t Bond. Craig achieves a complete and total failure to embody any
aspect of Bond. His dreary speaking voice sucked the life the action tried
desperately to pump in to the scenes. Also he never came off as suave or
charming, quite the opposite actually.
The scene with Vesper and the ‘arse’ comment, is a good example. It faltered,
then fell flat. Craig’s monotone response and lack of expression killed what
should have been a line that brought the house down. Eva Green, if you’ll excuse
the expression, was acting her ass off, Craig did absolutely nothing to return
the favor. She did everything any Bond girl could be expected to do. It just
didn’t work.
Now, imagine the same scene with Pierce Brosnan, it would have been a classic
memorable moment, a hit with the audience regardless of race, sex, or creed.
A (young?) Sean Connery in that scene would have brought the house down. The
theater would have to be rebuilt before the movie premier, because the audience
would have been so raucous the mortar and stone would have fallen apart.
With either Sean Connery or Pierce Brosnan it would have been a scene talked
about from the moment the trailer was shown until day the movie is released,
probably passed down into the lore of the movies history.
Of the people we showed the trailer to, the arse scene was the biggest
disappointment, the responses ranged from groans to a cynical snicker. (Ok, the
cynical snicker was me.)
The point is the scene missed the mark by miles.
Among the imagery shown are scenes that demonstrate an unremarkable, diminutive
Craig in various situations, particularly in the casino where he looked out of
place and out classed by the people hired to be in the background. The car crash
at the end was not creditable, something just looked wrong about it. Aside from
the fact the trailer did not impart the reason for the chase or why the super
cars brakes were faulty or why Vesper couldn’t roll out of the way. Come on, why
did the new car have to die?
Unfortunately the trailers primary intent was to sell us on the Vesper and Craig
relationship (we say Vesper/Craig because call the character portrayed by Daniel
Craig can not be considered “Bond” by any stretch of the imagination).
To people unfamiliar with this story it was an uncomfortable exchange as well as
inexplicable. The trailer does nothing to explain the why of it, it is lost in
wash of action sequences and blaring theme music.
One of EON’s talking points for Casino Royale is this is the one girl bond cared
about, well that is only true if you forget about Tracy
Tracy, the woman Bond married (noticed I said Woman, not girl), was as close to
a whole person as Bond ever got for a love interest. And when she was murdered,
her death shook Bond to his core.
Vesper on the other hand, while Bond did want to marry her, she was never a
complete person or character and never completely Bond’s. He never had nearly
the relationship and companionship he found with Tracy. Nor the assurance
marriage to her was the right thing.
Once Bond found out Vesper was a traitor, she was dead to him (literal and
figuratively), he could not think of her in the same way, not even to remember
the good. Vesper betrayal was the impetus Bond needed to stay on the job after
being racked with self-doubt while recovering from a nearly permanent life
changing injury. He last words about Vesper were “The bitch is dead now.” A
stinging rebuke.
After considerable consideration we believe the story for Casino Royale is going
to be a let down. In short it’s tripe. The story EON wants to tell has already
be told in ‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’. And according to the spoilers
leaking over the web, Craig blubbering like baby at the end is going to be the
death knell. Note to Craig if you hadn’t discarded the history of Bond you would
have know instinctively the right way to handle that scene. In short you would
have known Bond, you are at a huge disadvantage coming in to this, the people
you intend to have as your audience have a lifetime of reading and watching
James Bond. They know James Bond intimately, a half performance ain’t going to
cut it.
Biggest myth perpetuated by the powers that be is this is the story where Bond
becomes Bond, or the very apt Bond Begins, which simply isn’t true.
As for James Bond going from rough, inept rider to smooth operator, that is a
story that will not work. Not for James Bond anyway.
Getting the 00 did not transform Bond, who he is/was into a new creation through
some sort of elaborate metamorphosis. Bond was who Bond was. He had a lifetime
of practice moving through the right circles, savoring the finer things in life,
including the women.
Bond also had lifetime in suites, which is why he should look as if he was born
in them.
The evolution from Cro-Magnon to suave is to great too ignore and will be one of
the most notable detractors when Casino Royal is fully revealed.
Unfortunately for this movie, the bottom line is Casino Royale it is not going
to be a Bond Movie and the story they want to tell has already been told.
First Review of the Second Casino Royal Trailer Part 1
What Craig offered us in this trailer is exactly what we have seen before. He
does not portray James Bond, instead he submits a reused dry performance lacking
in life as well as charm.
If you watch the trailer carefully the man behind the curtain becomes painfully
obvious. The reality of how scripted, how re-rehearsed every scene is right down
to every look and every sigh comes crashing down around us. As an audience we
shouldn’t be aware of the man behind the curtain pulling the strings, the fact
Craig is a puppet is made crystal clear. Sad to say a puppet rendition of Casino
Royale done in the style of the lambasting “Team America ” would have been a
greater achievement in emotional and character development.
Craig is in for the disappointment of his career, the Bond movie he wants is not
the same Bond the public demands or has come to expect. Even now people are
talking about this being a good place to end the series for good. The character
created for Craig is no relation to James Bond. It is fraudulent attempt to use
the name and image that came before, like a title if you will, to demand the
recognition and respect the forebearers managed to earn. This James Bond lite,
is a mockery the rich history of 007. The literary Bond is used as excuse to
make the deviation, while adhering to none of the books charm and story.
Choosing instead to embody an amalgamation of generic action movie characters
and motivations.
The second trailer demonstrates Casino Royale is a formulaic effort and it
shows. Even the spontaneity has been stripped away. Sony has already hedged its
bets by granting unto themselves $250 million worth of free advertising, they
are covered win or lose. At least on “the books” it will look good during a
studio audit.
The worst omen for the new movie is the Bond theme song being sung, infusing
human voices with the instrumental theme. Harkening back to another heady,
pompous movie prequel/restart, The Phantom Menace.
Daniel Craig just a few short weeks ago was crying about needing everyone to
give him a chance. We called that smoke screen for what it was. Craig has
forgotten all about his tenuous standing as Bond in name only, Bond because
Barbara Broccoli fancies him.
She, he and EON have acted like bullies. Forcing their way upon the rest of us.
Forgetting the fundamental nature of their chosen professions, they are in the
service industry, they serve at our pleasure. Hopefully Sony is waiting for the
chance to remind them of who the big dog in this pack is.
Craig’s attitude now has changed 180 degrees from where he was a scant 2 weeks
ago. Now he is arrogantly bragging about the tidy sum he was paid. The press are
getting tired of this charade. They are waiting to go for the jugular when it
matters the most. The man’s arrogance knows no bounds, he has demonstrated his
pleading words and tears were disingenuous. He doesn’t care what the fans or
anyone else for that matter thinks, his only concern was the box-office
receipts. He doesn’t want you not giving him a chance before we pay his salary.
It seems he and Barbara think anyone will pay them whatever they ask to see a
“Bond” movie, no matter what they do. Forgotten is the strong sense the public
has of ownership. Yes, EON and the Broccoli family has “ownership” in the very
legal sense of the word, but the public owns the image, the thought, the ideals
that comprise the very essence of Bond, James Bond. It is in our hearts and
minds, something EON is not even bothering to try and win. Therefore they have
already lost.
The prevailing attitude that this is Bond now and you will like it, would have
fallen short of it’s desired effect in Stalinist Russia. Nobody is going to
march bus loads of people into the theaters forcing people to watch it.
As it is now the choices in the box-office this fall are a paltry offering.
Underwhelming is the word. Some of the less than substantive, pseudo news
magazines have touted Casino Royale as the #1 film this fall. If that is the
case then it shows you what a lackluster underwhelming fall movie season we have
coming up. It is the lack a of a true event that shows what is missing, if there
was Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, a Narnian Chronicle, or a Shrek movie in
the offering the hoopla and excitement would be palpable. No one can get their
hearts into being exited about this fall line up of movies. Nobody except for
Barbara Broccoli, who hopes to set us all up as marks, rubes, chumps .
As Daniel sits there counting on his fingers how much money he will have after
two more movies, thinking and talking about all he plans to buy with his ill
gotten gains. He reminds me very much of the old adage ‘never count your
chickens before they hatch.’ Also ‘mad as a wet hen’…
The Crying Game
The constant complaining, griping, whining, and general whinging being displayed
by Craig is most unbecoming of James Bond, another one of his facets that has
proven incompatible with the iconic role. None of current Bond’s predecessors
ever had to stoop to such lows.
Now as for the contents of his complaints, they are completely spurious and I
dismiss them. Tho not without merit nor reasons. And I never do anything without
due thought or consideration.
As for reserving judgment, Craig’s judgment has waited too long as it is. We
have watched his films, read his biography, studied his photos, watched the
teaser trailer and read every press clipping published. We know Craig better
than he knows himself. We have witnessed at a distance the desecration of our
beloved hero at the hands of those who were supposed to know him best, with
protecting him and his image supposedly in their hearts.
I’m amazed at the audacity to demand people see his movie. This is a blatant
attempt, not to win fans, but to con chumps. No different for a circus barker
promising you wonders and amazement beyond you wildest dreams, only to find a
jar of putrid jelly that was supposed to be the 8th wonder of the world. They
will not offer your money back after being duped, only sneer with distain.
That is what Craig is asking us to do, pony up the exorbitant ticket price
adding to the coffers of EON. I am thinking now of all those people who will
give Craig a chance but only find disappointment walking out of the theater
before the movies ends shaking their heads in disbelief. There will be no
recourse for them.
It would be different if EON was offering a money back guarantee or free preview
showings to win over those disaffected. But they are not, instead they offer
more contempt and an audacious demand for compliance.
Craig has been talking out of both sides of his mouth, promising one group
certain things and another other things. To those of us who doubt him, he
promises the same Bond we have loved, we know this is not true because they have
changed the fundamental nature of Bond. Changing him from a hero to a man who is
almost indistinguishable from the villain. The charm and the wit has been cut
out, the sophistication has been bludgeoned. This new Bond is not the same
character known from the movies nor even from the depths of the darkest folds of
Ian Fleming’s imagination.
For those who tentatively are supportive of him he boasts of the fundamental
changes in Bond to brutal, bloody, clumsy, ogre. Gritty and realism are his
keywords for ugly and unabashedly violent. The bloody pummeling of mans head
into a urinal for instance.
He has turned Bond from seasoned professional to inept amateur. Besmirching the
reputations of our men and women in the Special Forces. No wonder the Royal
Marines gave Craig a boat ride he would never forget.
Craig asserts in Casino Royale we get to watch Bond “becoming the man we love to
hate.” Who among us actually feels that way about Bond and can sill be
considered a Bond fan?
Daniel also asserts “We're discovering him and he's got rough edges,” There is
always room for growth in a character especially when you go from younger to
older incarnation, however the metamorphosis we are expected to buy, from a
complete cretin to distinguished man is too incredible for words.
Craig braggadociously goes on “Certain things he does should be questionable. I
think you should go, 'F**k, that's not nice,” Here again Craig shows his
complete incomprehension of the character. Yes, Bond does have some darker
moments, especially in the books, but he was never indistinguishable from the
bad guys and he was never a malicious person or acted maliciously without want.
If the rumors are true they have also changed Bond from a Navy man to an Army
man. Yes, I’m sure that’s exactly what Commander Ian Fleming of the Royal Navy
had in mind when he penned Casino Royale.
The evidence is in; there are plenty of reasons to reject this man and this
interpretation of a remedial Bond.
The Public should have been settling down, resigning themselves to a mediocre
cinematic foray. They have not, every time Daniel Craig appears in a public
venue more people join the number of those of us calling for a boycott. People
care too much about Bond to let this happen quietly. A mockery is being made of
one of the most recognizable figures of the modern age. And the world is lucky
enough to have a plethora of people who will speak out against Craig’s abysmal
interpretation in order to save the memory of a much cherished ideal, so future
generations might also have the chance to come to appreciate this uniquely
engrossing phenomenon.
Daniel Craig claims to have watched every Bond movie 3-4 times, then he says he
threw it all out. Guess what, we can tell the difference.
Too bad he didn’t hold on to those past movies a little longer, absorbing their
essence; he would have noticed something different about them, the heart. All of
the old movies had heart, and so did all of the Bonds for that matter. This new
Bond and this ill-conceived reboot are an abomination.
Daniel Craig, you have been judged and found wanting, lacking, and utterly
unsuitable. Please submit your resignation now and apologies to the fans for
your selfish, myopic view of things and your contribution to the horrendous
desecration of a worldwide treasure.