Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 
 Posted:   Apr 1, 2014 - 3:04 PM   
 By:   Disco Stu   (Member)

One should never judge anything unless they have actually seen it. Then one can offered any opinion they want on it.Otherwise it is pure dishonesty.

I might be wrong but I interprit this as:
negative views = not having seen what is being discussed
positive views = totally into the material and a complete scholar on it.

An approach I really hate.

D.S.

 
 Posted:   Apr 1, 2014 - 4:47 PM   
 By:   Dana Wilcox   (Member)

For those who have troubled themselves to read the source materials (Ian Fleming's original 007 book series), Daniel Craig's characterization fits the true James Bond persona quite nicely.


Sorry, I totally disagree. I've read all of Fleming's Bond stories (novels and short stories) and Daniel Craig is NOTHING like the literary Bond at all.


I think you must have been watching DVDs of DR. NO and GOLDFINGER while reading the Fleming books. I see in those books (which I am currently in the process of re-reading) a darker Bond than most of the pre-Craig characterizations. He's a hard case, and for me Craig is that guy. Most of the things that people complain about (here) are the things that make him believable and true to Fleming's vision, rather than just a cartoon character with fancy gizmos and a sex addiction.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 1, 2014 - 5:24 PM   
 By:   Richard-W   (Member)

So you like Daniel Craig but you don't like James Bond movies. Daniel Craig isn't playing James Bond. Not really. One can recognize the same character interpreted by different actors from Sean Connery through Pierce Brosnan over the course of thirty years because they were all "playing the scene" as the expression goes, but not any longer. Craig's changed the DNA of the character so much it's a completely different thing. There's more to a character than a name, and Craig is playing a different character but using the same name.


Why is James Bond always such a joyless subject around this place?


Because Daniel Craig apologists refuse to admit that he's a polarizing presence. He didn't "take care of the character" like he promised to in interviews. He has no class about the well-earned criticism, either. A lot of people think he's crapped on Bond long enough.

Actually, the James Bond movies are over and done with. Craig killed it. His version is something else entirely, masquerading under the same name.


How many times has the death knell been sounded for the James Bond franchise? A boringly large number, alas, and your pronouncement bears no more gravitas than the 703 or so which preceded it.


What death knell? The death knell you are hearing is in your imagination. You are confusing two different things. My pronouncement is creative, not financial. Do make a distinction between the creative and the financial. The death knell is a creative one. In turning James Bond into a deconstructed, politically-corrected carbon-copy of Dirty Harry, Paul Kersey and John McClaine the producers upped the ante at the box-office but in so doing he ceased to be James Bond. I agree that the franchise needed to change, and needed to grow up, but this particular change was the wrong change and wholly unnecessary. Anyone who thinks its natural for James Bond to have a geriatric female lead needs to get his head examined. Anyone who thinks James Bond needs to be followed around the globe by his M(other), constantly scolded by her and taught how to be a better man and a smarter spy, has no credibility. There were other ways to change the franchise and still be true to the originating character.

The producers always blame the faults in filmmaking -- their faults -- on the actor playing the part. Michael Wilson was a bad, inept writer and director John Glen was a plodding mediocrity; together they pounded The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill into the ground. So they blamed the criticism on Timothy Dalton. Or take Pierce Brosnan for example. His interpretation was traditional, and audiences loved it. His Bond films always made money; his last, Die Another Day was hugely successful even though it was a terrible film. The producers could have continued with Brosnan, who was enormously popular with audiences, just as they could have continued with Dalton, who was the main thing in those films audiences liked and responded to, in the changes or they could change the actor and still make money.

The producers are always to blame for the things Bond films are criticized for while the actors always delivered the goods. Until Craig came along. He doesn't give a sh it about James Bond.



For those who have troubled themselves to read the source materials (Ian Fleming's original 007 book series), Daniel Craig's characterization fits the true James Bond persona quite nicely -- something which cannot be said for Connery or more than one or two of the succession of pretty boys subsequently cast in the role.

Rubbish. There you go again. Another Craig apologist outright lying about the history and reinventing the facts. The truth is that James Bond progressed very little in the novels, although each novel emphasized a facet of him that the previous novel didn't even as he remained consistently the same character. Daniel Craig bears no resemblance to the James Bond of the novels. None. Zero. The character as written and played in Craig's films bears no resemblance internally or externally to the character in the novels. None. Zero. Craig mimics Connery's gestures and expressions in his last two films, but it doesn't help. The facts are that Ian Fleming met Sean Connery on the set of Dr. No -- which was filmed partly on the beach next to his house in Jamaica -- socialized with him, liked him and quickly adjusted to him. They caroused at his home, and even played golf together on the set of Goldfinger. Fleming's last Bond short stories and novels implement his impressions of Connery into the character. Those are the facts, whether you like it or not.



But go ahead, prattle on, don't let me interrupt your pleasure. But at the end of the day, just remember: Craig is Bond, and you're not. (Not sure, but I think that finger is for you!)

Craig is not Bond, and neither are you. But I would agree that the finger is aimed at James Bond fans and no doubt at Ian Fleming and the originating filmmakers for whom Craig has no respect and no use for.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 1, 2014 - 5:39 PM   
 By:   Richard-W   (Member)

Call me crazy but I liked Timothy Dalton.


Dalton was an awesome film Bond.

Loved his crocodilic expression.



Yeah, I think he had a "British Gentleman" debonair quality that Craig just does not have. Craig has a more oily violent quality. I think Dalton pulled it off rather nicely, despite all the grief he got at the time.




Agreed, except for the part about grief.

What grief?

I saw the films new, read the reviews and chatted with the fans. Everybody thought Dalton was a breadth of fresh air and everybody loved what he was doing. An actor's actor playing James Bond. He was unanimously welcomed.



Hi Richard,

Well I was pretty young, but my impression was that he was not that welcomed, I mean they did not use him very much, two movies. But yes, I like his style much more than Craig. If the reaction was as great as you say, then I feel better for Dalton.


Ado, in fairness, Dalton was criticized for being too serious, but it was a little thing. Don't make too much out of it. He didn't get much help form the second unit graduate and assistant editor John Glen who knew nothing about character interaction and learned nothing from one film to the next about how to layer a scene. Before he became director he edited for better directors. Audiences were glad that Dalton brought depth and empathy to the role, that he had clearly studied the source and was using it as much as circumstances allowed, that he restored a sense of risk and endangerment to the role, that he did his own action scenes, and even some of the stunts insofar as he was allowed. After years of watching Roger Moore fronting backscreen-projection, Dalton was a breadth of fresh air. He played the scene.

Strangely, Daniel Craig is now being praised for the seriousness Timothy Dalton was criticized for. In comparison, Dalton's seriousness did have an ironic humor to it. Dalton's seriousness was upbeat. He didn't flog the horse. Whereas Craig's seriousness is grim, downbeat and relentlessly on one note.

 
 Posted:   Apr 1, 2014 - 10:32 PM   
 By:   Dana Wilcox   (Member)


But go ahead, prattle on, don't let me interrupt your pleasure. But at the end of the day, just remember: Craig is Bond, and you're not. (Not sure, but I think that finger is for you!)

Craig is not Bond, and neither are you. But I would agree that the finger is aimed at James Bond fans and no doubt at Ian Fleming and the originating filmmakers for whom Craig has no respect and no use for.


Pretty damned inconsiderate of them not to have consulted with you before choosing Craig, huh? Quite obviously that finger is for you and the other crybabies who didn't get your way.

 
 Posted:   Apr 2, 2014 - 4:21 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

I owe you a beer for that post, Dana

 
 Posted:   Apr 2, 2014 - 4:29 AM   
 By:   Jim Phelps   (Member)

Get the picture?

Just be thankful they haven't ruined Derek Flint! When they do that, THEN you can cry hot, angry tears of adolescent, "get-out-of-my-room-I'm-50" rage on a public forum.

Remaking Flint*---that's where true weeping begins.



"Father, why are all the Flint fans weeping?"














*Not counting the 1975 TV movie, of course. wink

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 2, 2014 - 7:10 AM   
 By:   juhana   (Member)

For those who have troubled themselves to read the source materials (Ian Fleming's original 007 book series), Daniel Craig's characterization fits the true James Bond persona quite nicely.


Sorry, I totally disagree. I've read all of Fleming's Bond stories (novels and short stories) and Daniel Craig is NOTHING like the literary Bond at all.


I think you must have been watching DVDs of DR. NO and GOLDFINGER while reading the Fleming books. I see in those books (which I am currently in the process of re-reading) a darker Bond than most of the pre-Craig characterizations. He's a hard case, and for me Craig is that guy. Most of the things that people complain about (here) are the things that make him believable and true to Fleming's vision, rather than just a cartoon character with fancy gizmos and a sex addiction.


I would agree that the literary Bond was a somewhat darker and a definately more human character than what has been in presented in the movies. I would definetly like to see that Bond in a movie.

However, there are different breeds of "darkness". Just because both the Fleming-Bond and Craig-Bond are darker than the traditional movie bond, doesn't make them the same.
Craig's Bond seems to be this constantly and visibly brooding, rebellious and thuggish guy. These dark aspects can presumably be traced to his teenage hormones, what with CR and QOS telling a story about a 40-year old "young" Bond starting out his career.

The literary Bond's darker side by comparison has a more of a semi-noirish quality: He is someone who has over the course of his career seen and done many unpleasant things, and developed certain mindsets as a result. Therefore, if Craig-Bond is really supposed to be a green younger version of the literary Bond, shouldn't he in fact LACK all that angstiness? I will grant that in Skyfall, there's somewhat more of a sense that Bond is the experienced, weighed-down-by-the-dark-world-around-him character of the novels, and there I actually somewhat like Craig's Bond as a result (and the movie is pretty good!). But at least in CR and QOS, he's NOTHING like the literary Bond.

I would also argue that many people have an overblown fixation on the darkness/angst issue when analysing Fleming's Bond, though this is somewhat understandable due to this being the most obvious missing element when comparing Connery/Moore/Brosnan -type Bond to the source material. Certainly the literary Bond has a dark side, but the character has many other aspects too, many of which were better handled by some of the previous actors. Furthermore, the angst of the literary Bond is more of an inner existential pain, rather than the unsubtle thuggish and brooding behaviour we see him exhibit in the rebooted movies. In a sense, it could be said that Craig-Bond embodies the darker aspects of the literary character, and blows them so far out of proportion as to make the character unrecognisable.

Then there's the revenge element in QOS. Now you might point out that Bond avenges Tracy's death in YOLT, but that novel didn't have him do this by going off on a wild goose chase as a rogue agent, breaking orders on a whim. The only (professionally) objectionable thing he does in the novel is concealing the identity of Dr. Shatterhand and his wife from his superiors upon finding out they are Blofeld and Irma. Before the opportunity for revenge eventually presents itself towards the end, all his actions have been about trying to move past Tracy's death (who, unlike Vesper, was DIRECTLY killed by the villain), instead of about planning revenge and turning rogue. The novel also established that one of Bond's methods of trying to get over Tracy's death was throwing himself into carnal pleasures. If Craig-Bond is the same character as Fleming's Bond, why does he instead become a sex-avoiding monk when he finds himself in a similiar situation in QOS?

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 2, 2014 - 9:10 AM   
 By:   Richard-W   (Member)

For those who have troubled themselves to read the source materials (Ian Fleming's original 007 book series), Daniel Craig's characterization fits the true James Bond persona quite nicely.


Sorry, I totally disagree. I've read all of Fleming's Bond stories (novels and short stories) and Daniel Craig is NOTHING like the literary Bond at all.


I think you must have been watching DVDs of DR. NO and GOLDFINGER while reading the Fleming books. I see in those books (which I am currently in the process of re-reading) a darker Bond than most of the pre-Craig characterizations. He's a hard case, and for me Craig is that guy. Most of the things that people complain about (here) are the things that make him believable and true to Fleming's vision, rather than just a cartoon character with fancy gizmos and a sex addiction.


juhana:
I would agree that the literary Bond was a somewhat darker and a definitely more human character than what has been in presented in the movies. I would definitely like to see that Bond in a movie.

However, there are different breeds of "darkness". Just because both the Fleming-Bond and Craig-Bond are darker than the traditional movie bond, doesn't make them the same.
Craig's Bond seems to be this constantly and visibly brooding, rebellious and thuggish guy. These dark aspects can presumably be traced to his teenage hormones, what with CR and QOS telling a story about a 40-year old "young" Bond starting out his career.

The literary Bond's darker side by comparison has a more of a semi-noirish quality: He is someone who has over the course of his career seen and done many unpleasant things, and developed certain mindsets as a result. Therefore, if Craig-Bond is really supposed to be a green younger version of the literary Bond, shouldn't he in fact LACK all that angstiness? I will grant that in Skyfall, there's somewhat more of a sense that Bond is the experienced, weighed-down-by-the-dark-world-around-him character of the novels, and there I actually somewhat like Craig's Bond as a result (and the movie is pretty good!). But at least in CR and QOS, he's NOTHING like the literary Bond.

I would also argue that many people have an overblown fixation on the darkness/angst issue when analysing Fleming's Bond, though this is somewhat understandable due to this being the most obvious missing element when comparing Connery/Moore/Brosnan -type Bond to the source material. Certainly the literary Bond has a dark side, but the character has many other aspects too, many of which were better handled by some of the previous actors. Furthermore, the angst of the literary Bond is more of an inner existential pain, rather than the unsubtle thuggish and brooding behaviour we see him exhibit in the rebooted movies. In a sense, it could be said that Craig-Bond embodies the darker aspects of the literary character, and blows them so far out of proportion as to make the character unrecognisable.

Then there's the revenge element in QOS. Now you might point out that Bond avenges Tracy's death in YOLT, but that novel didn't have him do this by going off on a wild goose chase as a rogue agent, breaking orders on a whim. The only (professionally) objectionable thing he does in the novel is concealing the identity of Dr. Shatterhand and his wife from his superiors upon finding out they are Blofeld and Irma. Before the opportunity for revenge eventually presents itself towards the end, all his actions have been about trying to move past Tracy's death (who, unlike Vesper, was DIRECTLY killed by the villain), instead of about planning revenge and turning rogue. The novel also established that one of Bond's methods of trying to get over Tracy's death was throwing himself into carnal pleasures. If Craig-Bond is the same character as Fleming's Bond, why does he instead become a sex-avoiding monk when he finds himself in a similar situation in QOS?



Point by point an observant and well-informed post, juhana. Thank you.

 
 Posted:   Apr 2, 2014 - 10:14 AM   
 By:   Dana Wilcox   (Member)

juhana:
I would agree that the literary Bond was a somewhat darker and a definitely more human character than what has been in presented in the movies. I would definitely like to see that Bond in a movie.

However, there are different breeds of "darkness". Just because both the Fleming-Bond and Craig-Bond are darker than the traditional movie bond, doesn't make them the same.
Craig's Bond seems to be this constantly and visibly brooding, rebellious and thuggish guy. These dark aspects can presumably be traced to his teenage hormones, what with CR and QOS telling a story about a 40-year old "young" Bond starting out his career.

The literary Bond's darker side by comparison has a more of a semi-noirish quality: He is someone who has over the course of his career seen and done many unpleasant things, and developed certain mindsets as a result. Therefore, if Craig-Bond is really supposed to be a green younger version of the literary Bond, shouldn't he in fact LACK all that angstiness? I will grant that in Skyfall, there's somewhat more of a sense that Bond is the experienced, weighed-down-by-the-dark-world-around-him character of the novels, and there I actually somewhat like Craig's Bond as a result (and the movie is pretty good!). But at least in CR and QOS, he's NOTHING like the literary Bond.

I would also argue that many people have an overblown fixation on the darkness/angst issue when analysing Fleming's Bond, though this is somewhat understandable due to this being the most obvious missing element when comparing Connery/Moore/Brosnan -type Bond to the source material. Certainly the literary Bond has a dark side, but the character has many other aspects too, many of which were better handled by some of the previous actors. Furthermore, the angst of the literary Bond is more of an inner existential pain, rather than the unsubtle thuggish and brooding behaviour we see him exhibit in the rebooted movies. In a sense, it could be said that Craig-Bond embodies the darker aspects of the literary character, and blows them so far out of proportion as to make the character unrecognisable.

Then there's the revenge element in QOS. Now you might point out that Bond avenges Tracy's death in YOLT, but that novel didn't have him do this by going off on a wild goose chase as a rogue agent, breaking orders on a whim. The only (professionally) objectionable thing he does in the novel is concealing the identity of Dr. Shatterhand and his wife from his superiors upon finding out they are Blofeld and Irma. Before the opportunity for revenge eventually presents itself towards the end, all his actions have been about trying to move past Tracy's death (who, unlike Vesper, was DIRECTLY killed by the villain), instead of about planning revenge and turning rogue. The novel also established that one of Bond's methods of trying to get over Tracy's death was throwing himself into carnal pleasures. If Craig-Bond is the same character as Fleming's Bond, why does he instead become a sex-avoiding monk when he finds himself in a similar situation in QOS?


Point by point an observant and well-informed post, juhana. Thank you.


Differing opinions are fine, and those who hold them are welcome to them (as I am welcome to mine). Most of the contrasts drawn by juhana have more to do with the screenplays than with any fundamental flaw in Craig's performance. As far as I know, Craig neither writes nor bears responsibility for the words that are put down on paper for him to follow. Perhaps you should write your nasty letters to the screen writers and give Craig a break (not that he likely gives a shit either way, as per the aptly positioned middle finger).

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 2, 2014 - 11:20 AM   
 By:   Richard-W   (Member)

... Point by point an observant and well-informed post, juhana. Thank you.

Differing opinions are fine, and those who hold them are welcome to them (as I am welcome to mine). Most of the contrasts drawn by juhana have more to do with the screenplays than with any fundamental flaw in Craig's performance. As far as I know, Craig neither writes nor bears responsibility for the words that are put down on paper for him to follow. Perhaps you should write your nasty letters to the screen writers and give Craig a break (not that he likely gives a shit either way, as per the aptly positioned middle finger).


juhana's observations are supported by facts, whereas your opinion is worthless because it is not grounded by anything. You just love Craig to death. You're fine with anything he does. You think that the Bond films should be about his mother. You enjoy listening to Judi Dench dress him down at the top her lungs all over the globe. Actually, Craig has been allowed more participation in the creative process than previous actors; he's talked about it in interviews. He is largely responsible for the depressing, whining tone. The writing could sometimes be played differently than the monothematic Craig, but depressing, whining tone is his specialty. But you are right about one thing. Daniel Craig doesn't give a sh it, and that means he doesn't give a sh it about his defenders, either. The middle finger is meant for you as much as for Ian Fleming, the originating filmmakers, the critics, and the fans. So you are in better company than your uniformed "opinion" deserves. This message was meant for you, Dana:

 
 Posted:   Apr 2, 2014 - 11:24 AM   
 By:   mstrox   (Member)

I'm beginning to think that Richard-W feels very strongly about this subject.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 2, 2014 - 11:34 AM   
 By:   Richard-W   (Member)

Not as strongly as Dana Wilcox and Daniel Craig feel about it, evidently.

 
 Posted:   Apr 2, 2014 - 12:57 PM   
 By:   Dana Wilcox   (Member)

juhana's observations are supported by facts, whereas your opinion is worthless because it is not grounded by anything. You just love Craig to death. You're fine with anything he does. You think that the Bond films should be about his mother. You enjoy listening to Judi Dench dress him down at the top her lungs all over the globe. Actually, Craig has been allowed more participation in the creative process than previous actors; he's talked about it in interviews. He is largely responsible for the depressing, whining tone. The writing could sometimes be played differently than the monothematic Craig, but depressing, whining tone is his specialty. But you are right about one thing. Daniel Craig doesn't give a sh it, and that means he doesn't give a sh it about his defenders, either. The middle finger is meant for you as much as for Ian Fleming, the originating filmmakers, the critics, and the fans. So you are in better company than your uniformed "opinion" deserves. This message was meant for you, Dana:



That gesture's for you, Richard-W, no two ways about it. It's for all you Connery-fixated crybabies and haters. Craig knows that if no one goes to see his movies he's out of a job, so it makes no sense to suggest that he doesn't care what James Bond fans think. Since people are going out to see those movies (SKYFALL for example received 92% positive critical reviews and 86% positive audience reviews, and hauled in more than $304 million at the box office, according to the Rotten Tomatoes website), he is in a perfectly fine position to offer you his sincerest gestural recommendation. You can call my opinion "uninformed," I really don't care what you think. What I do know is, Daniel Craig is James Bond, you aren't, and his films are doing just fine, thank you, whether you like them or not. I think what you are most upset about is that the Bond film producers don't care what you think either, and will likely never need to. So take your argument and, well, follow Daniel's digital suggestion. On top of that, I fart in your general direction!

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 2, 2014 - 2:15 PM   
 By:   Richard-W   (Member)

Nasty, aren't you. There is no doubt that Daniel Craig's middle finger is directed at James Bond fans. That's the whole point. But I always consider the source, Dana, and in this case the source is not respected because he does not respect.

Daniel Craig gets to use the name, but he is not playing James Bond. He's playing something else. If he read all the books, he couldn't begin to tell you who and what James Bond is because he doesn't get it. He is not Bond, and he will never be Bond. If he is reincarnated as a Sean Connery / George Lazenby / Roger Moore / Timothy Dalton / Pierce Brosnan look-alike, he will still not be James Bond. The deconstructed, politically-corrected, Mother-fixated, pug-ugly character played by Craig is a Mad Magazine version of Bond. When it's all added up by historians and the fans in the near future, Craig's films will have dated the fastest, and his performance will be recognized for the false ejaculation that it is. The franchise makes money no matter who plays the role, so don't take the financial success of Craig's films as some kind of endorsement. If a different actor had worn the suit in the same films they would have earned the same amount of money. Your idolatry for this pathetic actor and his pathetic Bond films tell us more about you than it does about the franchise. Your farting on this board is exactly what I would expect from a Daniel Craig fan. You have the same mentality in common: crass and with no class.

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 2, 2014 - 3:06 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

Thanks for not letting me down folks.

 
 Posted:   Apr 2, 2014 - 3:20 PM   
 By:   Dana Wilcox   (Member)

. Nasty, aren't you. There is no doubt that Daniel Craig's middle finger is directed at James Bond fans. That's the whole point. But I always consider the source, Dana, and in this case the source is not respected because he does not respect.

Daniel Craig gets to use the name, but he is not playing James Bond. He's playing something else. If he read all the books, he couldn't begin to tell you who and what James Bond is because he doesn't get it. He is not Bond, and he will never be Bond. If he is reincarnated as a Sean Connery / George Lazenby / Roger Moore / Timothy Dalton / Pierce Brosnan look-alike, he will still not be James Bond. The deconstructed, politically-corrected, Mother-fixated, pug-ugly character played by Craig is a Mad Magazine version of Bond. When it's all added up by historians and the fans in the near future, Craig's films will have dated the fastest, and his performance will be recognized for the false ejaculation that it is. The franchise makes money no matter who plays the role, so don't take the financial success of Craig's films as some kind of endorsement. If a different actor had worn the suit in the same films they would have earned the same amount of money. Your idolatry for this pathetic actor and his pathetic Bond films tell us more about you than it does about the franchise. Your farting on this board is exactly what I would expect from a Daniel Craig fan. You have the same mentality in common: no class.


Well, if one thing is true in this life, it is that if you type things in bold letters they will be more true and impress a lot more folks! How's that working for you so far?

So Richard, I guess I owe you an apology, for once again I've read someone's fist-pounding, fire-snorting polemic on a (to me) rather trivial topic, and made the mistake of underestimating just how invested that person could actually be on that topic. I've been entertaining myself at your expense (a bad habit of mine, I confess) but I was really hoping that in doing so, some little ray of humor might emerge from you, amidst the black clouds of your rhetoric. In that, I've clearly failed. For a fact, I do like Daniel Craig just fine as James Bond, and have admired his work in films such as MUNICH, THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO and INFAMOUS, among others. I also understand that, perhaps even as soon as the two Craig James Bond films already announced for release in 2015 are concluded, he may well (like all the other James Bonds) be moving on to other things. So I think that if you just have a little patience, all of your wet dreams will come true, and some other actor will assume the holy mantle. I assure you that I will not cry a drop on that day, but will be looking forward to seeing what that actor brings to the role. Who knows -- we may then both like the same guy playing James Bond! We can hope together that it won't be someone whose performance is a "false ejaculation," though on second thought, that might be preferable to the real thing, which could be a messy (and embarrassing) proposition for the next guy.

So that's it for me. (Sorry to disappoint Octoberman.)

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 2, 2014 - 3:52 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

So that's it for me. (Sorry to disappoint Octoberman.)


Actually, none of my comment was meant for you--but others. Sorry if it came across that way.
You cool. wink

 
 
 Posted:   Apr 2, 2014 - 4:10 PM   
 By:   Richard-W   (Member)

Nasty, aren't you. There is no doubt that Daniel Craig's middle finger is directed at James Bond fans. That's the whole point. But I always consider the source, Dana, and in this case the source is not respected because he does not respect.

Daniel Craig gets to use the name, but he is not playing James Bond. He's playing something else. If he read all the books, he couldn't begin to tell you who and what James Bond is because he doesn't get it. He is not Bond, and he will never be Bond. If he is reincarnated as a Sean Connery / George Lazenby / Roger Moore / Timothy Dalton / Pierce Brosnan look-alike, he will still not be James Bond. The deconstructed, politically-corrected, Mother-fixated, pug-ugly character played by Craig is a Mad Magazine version of Bond. When it's all added up by historians and the fans in the near future, Craig's films will have dated the fastest, and his performance will be recognized for the false ejaculation that it is. The franchise makes money no matter who plays the role, so don't take the financial success of Craig's films as some kind of endorsement. If a different actor had worn the suit in the same films they would have earned the same amount of money. Your idolatry for this pathetic actor and his pathetic Bond films tell us more about you than it does about the franchise. Your farting on this board is exactly what I would expect from a Daniel Craig fan. You have the same mentality in common: no class.


Well, if one thing is true in this life, it is that if you type things in bold letters they will be more true and impress a lot more folks! How's that working for you so far?

So Richard, I guess I owe you an apology, for once again I've read someone's fist-pounding, fire-snorting polemic on a (to me) rather trivial topic, and made the mistake of underestimating just how invested that person could actually be on that topic. I've been entertaining myself at your expense (a bad habit of mine, I confess) but I was really hoping that in doing so, some little ray of humor might emerge from you, amidst the black clouds of your rhetoric. In that, I've clearly failed. For a fact, I do like Daniel Craig just fine as James Bond, and have admired his work in films such as MUNICH, THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO and INFAMOUS, among others. I also understand that, perhaps even as soon as the two Craig James Bond films already announced for release in 2015 are concluded, he may well (like all the other James Bonds) be moving on to other things. So I think that if you just have a little patience, all of your wet dreams will come true, and some other actor will assume the holy mantle. I assure you that I will not cry a drop on that day, but will be looking forward to seeing what that actor brings to the role. Who knows -- we may then both like the same guy playing James Bond! We can hope together that it won't be someone whose performance is a "false ejaculation," though on second thought, that might be preferable to the real thing, which could be a messy (and embarrassing) proposition for the next guy.

So that's it for me. (Sorry to disappoint Octoberman.)


You're a sore loser, Dana Wilcox. First you start an argument, then if you can't win the argument, you try to provoke the winner with base language and insults. No wonder you worship Daniel Craig.

1. There is no fist-pounding or fire-snorting on my part. My posts are written calmly and with mild amusement. The fist-pounding and fire-snorting you hear is in your own head.

2. At least my posts are informed by facts. Like most Craig apologists, you ignore facts and make crap up as you go along and then claim that your uninformed opinion is valid. It isn't. Your opinion is worthless.

3. You know what you like. You like Daniel Craig as James Bond. You're entertained by a forty-three old actor cast as a "young" James Bond who is excoriated into being a smarter spy and a better man by his M(other). You enjoy the verbal emasculation. At least you admit it. I wouldn't be surprised if you are a forty-three old who lives at home with your mother. No wonder you enjoy Daniel Craig so much. In SKYFALL he loses every fight, he fails his tests, he keeps losing his gun or throwing it away or having it taken from him, he lets go of suspect Patrice letting him fall to his death, he fails to save Severine who looks to him for help, he defers humbly to the new Moneypenny because she shot him and then gave him a shave, he plays into Silva's hands by taking him back to MI6's new digs, he parks the Aston-Martin in plain sight so it will be destroyed along with his ancestral home to the tune of the James Bond Theme, and in an effort to protect M(other) he unwittingly maneuvers her into position to be murdered. Scene after scene is organized to display James Bond as a failure and a total loser. If he had been written out of the film events would not be changed, the results would be the same. Even the opening titles are a deconstruction. The camera enters his shoulder wound, takes us past images of guilt and decay and death representing his life, as Bond shoots at himself in a hall of mirrors. That's what constitutes an anti-James Bond film. Whoever buys into this agenda of deconstruction probably never liked or cared about the Bond films in the first place.

4. Bold type helps separate one post from another for my tired old eyes. I embolden other people's posts more often than I do my own (see previous page).

5. Alright, so you like Daniel Craig "in MUNICH, THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO and INFAMOUS, among others." He is the weakness in these films. One monothematic performance after another. Each film would be strengthened if a different actor had played his part. Someone who can do more than act depressed all the time. Certainly the original European version of THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATOO proves that.

6. Expect more deconstruction of the character in the next two films. That's what Daniel Craig was hired to do, to sell Barbara Broccoli's agenda. By the time he's finished destroying the action hero there will be nothing left for another actor to build on. With that mission accomplished, Barbara Broccoli has a surprise in store for people like you ... but I'm sure you'll be fine with it.

 
 Posted:   Apr 2, 2014 - 6:38 PM   
 By:   Dana Wilcox   (Member)

So that's it for me. (Sorry to disappoint Octoberman.)


Actually, none of my comment was meant for you--but others. Sorry if it came across that way.
You cool. wink


No problem, O'man. We cool. Perhaps others will point out the obvious to my excitable antagonist, or not. Not worth the exercise for me.

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.