I'm not watching that.....

[James1090]

i think that the Bond producers are trying to obviously copy the Bourne franchise without realising that Jason Bourne is absolutly nothing like Bond and in the process they are forgeting the cinematic roots of the character, this will long term be a mistake. How do you feel about the news comming out about the next movie? It does not sound good!

And the Bourne films are no-where nearly as good as the majority of past Bond films. I like the Bourne films for what they are. But their not Bond, and Bond should not aspire to be Bourne!

I haven't even bothered to do any research at all on what the next so-called "Bond film" is going to be about. Bond died last year. I'm completely done with "Bond" as long as Daniel Craig or even Paul Haggis are involved.

Bond is on hold for me until Craig is out. His presence with Haggis' view of Bond, is not my taste at all for Bond. EOTT I agree!

You and me both. From what I read I really don't like the direction its going ever since Craig came in.

[bjmdds]

i think that the Bond producers are trying to obviously copy the Bourne franchise without realising that Jason Bourne is absolutly nothing like Bond and in the process they are forgeting the cinematic roots of the character, this will long term be a mistake. How do you feel about the news comming out about the next movie? It does not sound good!

And the Bourne films are no-where nearly as good as the majority of past Bond films. I like the Bourne films for what they are. But their not Bond, and Bond should not aspire to be Bourne!

I haven't even bothered to do any research at all on what the next so-called "Bond film" is going to be about. Bond died last year. I'm completely done with "Bond" as long as Daniel Craig or even Paul Haggis are involved.

Bond is on hold for me until Craig is out. His presence with Haggis' view of Bond, is not my taste at all for Bond. EOTT I agree!

You and me both. From what I read I really don't like the direction its going ever since Craig came in.

Welcome 1090, you will do nicely here with your views.

[James]

From what I read I really don't like the direction its going ever since Craig came in.

Me neither and I was intially excited by the reboot and prospect of a young Bond actor. Daniel Craig's casting blew that enthusiasm out of the water. The prospect of Craig gurning his way through another Bourne knock-off...

[James1090]

From what I read I really don't like the direction its going ever since Craig came in.

Me neither and I was intially excited by the reboot and prospect of a young Bond actor. Daniel Craig's casting blew that enthusiasm out of the water. The prospect of Craig gurning his way through another Bourne knock-off...

Yeah they should have started a reboot with someone like George Lazenby's age. Not someone who's 38 and looks older than that.

[carl stromberg]

From what I read I really don't like the direction its going ever since Craig came in.

Me neither and I was intially excited by the reboot and prospect of a young Bond actor. Daniel Craig's casting blew that enthusiasm out of the water. The prospect of Craig gurning his way through another Bourne knock-off...

Yeah they should have started a reboot with someone like George Lazenby's age. Not someone who's 38 and looks older than that.

I agree! I can't understand why people are not complaining......!

[James1090]

From what I read I really don't like the direction its going ever since Craig came in.

Me neither and I was intially excited by the reboot and prospect of a young Bond actor. Daniel Craig's casting blew that enthusiasm out of the water. The prospect of Craig gurning his way through another Bourne knock-off...

Yeah they should have started a reboot with someone like George Lazenby's age. Not someone who's 38 and looks older than that.

I agree! I can't understand why people are not complaining......!

Yeah usually a new agent means a young person, someone who looks like they are just starting.

[Commander 0077]

From what I read I really don't like the direction its going ever since Craig came in.

Me neither and I was intially excited by the reboot and prospect of a young Bond actor. Daniel Craig's casting blew that enthusiasm out of the water. The prospect of Craig gurning his way through another Bourne knock-off...

Yeah they should have started a reboot with someone like George Lazenby's age. Not someone who's 38 and looks older than that.

I agree! I can't understand why people are not complaining......![/

quote]

Yeah usually a new agent means a young person, someone who looks like they are just starting.

"I can't see why people are not complaining ....."
Well, that's the basic question isn't it. 'People' who have accepted Craig as Bond conveniently overlook the most basic things about Bond, such as:

* He looks a very old 38. How he can play a young Bond just starting out is .... words fail me. We've seen the latest photos of his beard being completely white, he looks a craggy 50! I saw the DVD starring Bronson and Selma Hayek. One girl viewing it said, He's a really hot 50. I can't believe it. (Sorry for brining PB into the conversation ... but that segues into the next point) ...
* Craig doesn't look neither young nor dashing. Althouigh PB is older, he can play dashing. We'll see if this is true in his film with Angelina Jolie.
Craig does not look dashing in CR. He will look older in the next Bond, and I can't hope that his dash will improve. But the 'people' overlook that Bond is supposed to be charming, grace under pressure and all that. Craig's take on Bond gives us someone who seems ready to crack at the slightest pressure. The now-famous line "Do I look like I give a ****?" is indicative of the new 'Bond.' Yet this too is overlooked.
* It is overlooked that the new 'Bond' is no longer a Royal Navy Victoria Reserve Commander with CMG. He is an army Captain, a couple of rungs lower than a commander. He's been demoted, which seems sadly appropriate. And of course, he's lost his CMG, too.
* 'Bond' doesn't even know how to dress himself, nor know the difference between red and white wine, etc. He's a closer cousin to Red Grant in looks and outlook. The Bond of the novel CR already knows the differences; there is nothing there that someone has to fit him in his first tuxedo. CR should have also shown Bond fumbling with his bow tie; presumably he doesn't know how to tie one if he has to be awestruck with evening wear

You can add other 'overlooks' ....

[The Sweeney]

Me neither and I was intially excited by the reboot and prospect of a young Bond actor. Daniel Craig's casting blew that enthusiasm out of the water. The prospect of Craig gurning his way through another Bourne knock-off...

Yeah they should have started a reboot with someone like George Lazenby's age. Not someone who's 38 and looks older than that.

I agree! I can't understand why people are not complaining......![/

quote]

Yeah usually a new agent means a young person, someone who looks like they are just starting.

"I can't see why people are not complaining ....."
Well, that's the basic question isn't it. 'People' who have accepted Craig as Bond conveniently overlook the most basic things about Bond, such as:

* He looks a very old 38. How he can play a young Bond just starting out is .... words fail me. We've seen the latest photos of his beard being completely white, he looks a craggy 50! I saw the DVD starring Bronson and Selma Hayek. One girl viewing it said, He's a really hot 50. I can't believe it. (Sorry for brining PB into the conversation ... but that segues into the next point) ...
* Craig doesn't look neither young nor dashing. Althouigh PB is older, he can play dashing. We'll see if this is true in his film with Angelina Jolie.
Craig does not look dashing in CR. He will look older in the next Bond, and I can't hope that his dash will improve. But the 'people' overlook that Bond is supposed to be charming, grace under pressure and all that. Craig's take on Bond gives us someone who seems ready to crack at the slightest pressure. The now-famous line "Do I look like I give a ****?" is indicative of the new 'Bond.' Yet this too is overlooked.
* It is overlooked that the new 'Bond' is no longer a Royal Navy Victoria Reserve Commander with CMG. He is an army Captain, a couple of rungs lower than a commander. He's been demoted, which seems sadly appropriate. And of course, he's lost his CMG, too.
* 'Bond' doesn't even know how to dress himself, nor know the difference between red and white wine, etc. He's a closer cousin to Red Grant in looks and outlook. The Bond of the novel CR already knows the differences; there is nothing there that someone has to fit him in his first tuxedo. CR should have also shown Bond fumbling with his bow tie; presumably he doesn't know how to tie one if he has to be awestruck with evening wear

You can add other 'overlooks' ....

Fair comments there. I like reading well thought our arguments on the reasons for some of you not liking Craig as Bond. This holds far more weight than the usual crap like `he's ugly, craggy, blonde, short, etc.'

Posts like yours Commander, do this website justice, even if I don't agree with it.

[Terry]

From what I read I really don't like the direction its going ever since Craig came in.

Me neither and I was intially excited by the reboot and prospect of a young Bond actor. Daniel Craig's casting blew that enthusiasm out of the water. The prospect of Craig gurning his way through another Bourne knock-off...

Yeah they should have started a reboot with someone like George Lazenby's age. Not someone who's 38 and looks older than that.

I agree! I can't understand why people are not complaining......!

Yeah usually a new agent means a young person, someone who looks like they are just starting.

Another thing too is that Craig doesn't look very intelligent. I don't believe that his Bond went to Oxford. He seems like a working-class person talking in a fake 'posh actor' voice. He isn't very stylish or refined.

[bjmdds]

I'm not into stupid things like invisible cars.

I didn't mind it.

Better than getting dirty crashing through sheetrock walls.

[Commander 0077]

Yeah they should have started a reboot with someone like George Lazenby's age. Not someone who's 38 and looks older than that.

I agree! I can't understand why people are not complaining......![/

quote]

Yeah usually a new agent means a young person, someone who looks like they are just starting.

"I can't see why people are not complaining ....."
Well, that's the basic question isn't it. 'People' who have accepted Craig as Bond conveniently overlook the most basic things about Bond, such as:

* He looks a very old 38. How he can play a young Bond just starting out is .... words fail me. We've seen the latest photos of his beard being completely white, he looks a craggy 50! I saw the DVD starring Bronson and Selma Hayek. One girl viewing it said, He's a really hot 50. I can't believe it. (Sorry for brining PB into the conversation ... but that segues into the next point) ...
* Craig doesn't look neither young nor dashing. Althouigh PB is older, he can play dashing. We'll see if this is true in his film with Angelina Jolie.
Craig does not look dashing in CR. He will look older in the next Bond, and I can't hope that his dash will improve. But the 'people' overlook that Bond is supposed to be charming, grace under pressure and all that. Craig's take on Bond gives us someone who seems ready to crack at the slightest pressure. The now-famous line "Do I look like I give a ****?" is indicative of the new 'Bond.' Yet this too is overlooked.
* It is overlooked that the new 'Bond' is no longer a Royal Navy Victoria Reserve Commander with CMG. He is an army Captain, a couple of rungs lower than a commander. He's been demoted, which seems sadly appropriate. And of course, he's lost his CMG, too.
* 'Bond' doesn't even know how to dress himself, nor know the difference between red and white wine, etc. He's a closer cousin to Red Grant in looks and outlook. The Bond of the novel CR already knows the differences; there is nothing there that someone has to fit him in his first tuxedo. CR should have also shown Bond fumbling with his bow tie; presumably he doesn't know how to tie one if he has to be awestruck with evening wear

You can add other 'overlooks' ....

Fair comments there. I like reading well thought our arguments on the reasons for some of you not liking Craig as Bond. This holds far more weight than the usual crap like `he's ugly, craggy, blonde, short, etc.'

Posts like yours Commander, do this website justice, even if I don't agree with it.

Muchos graces, Sweeney. As you should know by now, I'm glad that you're on this site ... it keeps us on our toes. While we have disagreements on Bond, we're still Bond fans. (pity the emoticons don't have a bow, since I would use a couple now

[Kristatos]

* It is overlooked that the new 'Bond' is no longer a Royal Navy Victoria Reserve Commander with CMG. He is an army Captain, a couple of rungs lower than a commander. He's been demoted, which seems sadly appropriate. And of course, he's lost his CMG, too.

Where do you get this information? The dossier on the official Casino Royale website lists him as a Navy commander who served on HMS Exeter in the first Gulf War.

[Gary Seven]

Bond 22 looks like a DVD job.

[james stock]

Bond 22 looks like a DVD job.

It sounds as if they are making a bourne like trilogy, so we have to pay to see the same story three times. The question is why? we have had the criminal organsation arc in the Connery films plus Bond does not have as complex a history as Bourne who has amnesia. Cubby Broccoli once said Bond should go forward and not backword i think Craig will be forgotton and people will return to classics

[Commander 0077]

* It is overlooked that the new 'Bond' is no longer a Royal Navy Victoria Reserve Commander with CMG. He is an army Captain, a couple of rungs lower than a commander. He's been demoted, which seems sadly appropriate. And of course, he's lost his CMG, too.

Where do you get this information? The dossier on the official Casino Royale website lists him as a Navy commander who served on HMS Exeter in the first Gulf War.

This was mentioned in some threads several months ago. My memory may be playing tricks on me but, it seems that 1/ in the credits sequence Bond's file shows him as Captain in SAS (however, it could be that this was from the original script, which indicated this) 2/ Vesper Lynd's comment to Bond : "You .... SAS-types ...." Bond doesn't correct her. Of course, she could have been making a general reference, bunching navy and army together. Then she looks at his watch: "Rolex?" Bond corrects her. "Omega." Is it possible the two comments are related?
ie, If Bond no longer wears his beloved Rolex Oyster Perpetual, is it plausible that he is also no longer in the navy but the army SAS? He corrects Vesper on his watch, but not with the SAS comment.

I've only seen CR once. I can definitely remember the SAS and Omega comment.

And of course, Bonds makes un-Bondian moves, such as his order of 'Bollinger Grand Annee', which the insouciant 007 would say, All Bollinger La Grand Annees have a year of vintage. This is similar to DAF when Bond catches the two gay villains in the act of posing as wine stewards. In CR we catch an unBondian Bond in the act.

And since on the subject of food and wine, Bond does give a d**n about his food and wine. This is more circumstantial evidence to me that this new 'Bond' could certainly morph from the navy to the army.

[The Sweeney]

Bond 22 looks like a DVD job.

Really? So you have already seen some of it then.....?

[Skywalker]

You should IMO give the new Bond film a chance. I will watch it with no pre-concieved ideas as to whether it is poor or not. Surely you can only make that judgement after you have seen it.

As Bond fans, I would have thought everyone on here would watch it, so that at least you could write a review (Positive or Negative) and discuss the film.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

I've written my Bond 22 review aready.