Dear Brosnan fan boys.

TheManWithNoName · Post by **TheManWithNoName** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:05 am

If you do not like the change of the actor, then too bad! As Bond fans, you should all know that Eon Productions would always change the actor, even if he was your favorite Bond actor of all time.

I mean, what sort of fans would boycott something their a fan of that makes millions of other people happy? A true Bond fan would stick by the franchise regardless of who the actor is.

Granted I like Pierce Brosnan, but think about it this way: If Pierce had such a problem with his scripts and films, then why didn’t he do what Connery did and just leave?

(sorry about the spelling, it is late and I haven't gotten much sleep)

Post by **carl stromberg** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:06 pm

I still have yet to see any one of you come up with one valid reason why Casino Royale was a bad movie or why the new Bond actor shouldn't play Bond.

Well that's your problem!

I can come up with lots of valid reasons. Even someone like The Sweeney admits that some people have valid reasons for not liking Craig as people have valid reasons for not liking Die Another Day or the Moore era. Don't mistake your subjective opinions for fact!

Please, don't try and bring inflation into this; because the studios don't give a tinkers d**n about it.

You have to do this to compare films - which is what you seem to be doing with your "Casino Royale" is one of the "most selling" [sic] Bond films statement. Just as there are numerous other variables......

Welcome to the forum anyway!

Post by **James** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:36 pm

How many times is someone who can barely spell going to pop up and post under the impression that everyone who dislikes Daniel Craig playing Bond is obsessed with Pierce Brosnan and wanted him in the role until he was ninety?

Post by **The Sweeney** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:07 pm

James wrote:How many times is someone who can barely spell going to pop up and post under the impression that everyone who dislikes Daniel Craig playing Bond is obsessed with Pierce Brosnan and wanted him in the role until he was ninety?

Because it appeared as though most boycotters wanted that, according to this website.

And there are plenty of anti-Craigers that have popped up over on Mi6 from time-to-time, with a tendancy to not be able to spell or write properly....

Post by **James** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:51 pm

The Sweeney wrote:
James wrote:How many times is someone who can barely spell going to pop up and post under the impression that everyone who dislikes Daniel Craig playing Bond is obsessed with Pierce Brosnan and wanted him in the role until he was ninety?
Because it appeared as though most boycotters wanted that, according to this website.

And there are plenty of anti-Craigers that have popped up over on Mi6 from time-to-time, with a tendancy to not be able to spell or write properly....

The original webmaster of CNB went for the Brosnan angle. You've exprapolated that and applied it to all the Craig naysayers. It's like a political party. There are a range of views within.

And please don't diss Charles Vine and BJMDDS like that

Post by **The Sweeney** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:46 pm

James wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:
James wrote:How many times is someone who can barely spell going to pop up and post under the impression that everyone who dislikes Daniel Craig playing Bond is obsessed with Pierce Brosnan and wanted him in the role until he was ninety?
Because it appeared as though most boycotters wanted that, according to this website.

And there are plenty of anti-Craigers that have popped up over on Mi6 from time-to-time, with a tendancy to not be able to spell or write properly....

The original webmaster of CNB went for the Brosnan angle. You've exprapolated that and applied it to all the Craig naysayers. It's like a political party. There are a range of views within.

And please don't diss Charles Vine and BJMDDS like that

True. There are a range of views within this forum, this is why I spend so much time on here, to try and understand the opposing view.

It's just the stigma that has been attached to this website will take a long time to wear off.

As for bjmdds and Vine, I was actually referring to craigisntbond on Mi6. At least Vine and bj can write properly, even if what they write is utter nonsense.......

Commander 0077 · Post by **Commander 0077** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:39 pm

TheManWithNoName wrote:
I mean, what sort of fans would boycott something their a fan of that makes millions of other people happy? A true Bond fan would stick by the franchise regardless of who the actor is.

(sorry about the spelling, it is late and I haven't gotten much sleep)

I think a true Bond fan is similar to a 'true patriot' ... a true patriot doesn't support his government right or wrong. There would never be an America with that attitude. And so there are some Bond fans who feel that the new trend in Bond (drifting away from the Bond of the previous films and the books) is not a good thing for the franchise.

Another example. If Superman were cast as a blond Harry Potter, would this be acceptable just because he is called Superman? There would be many 'true fans' who would say that Superman must have a certain look; otherwise a ton of actors could play him. If James Bond is going to look like everyone's next door neighbor, then anyone can play him. (I am just commenting on the physicality of the character here).

There is nothing wrong with someone preferring DG as Bond; but there is also nothing wrong with not preferring him. It may boil down to Commander Bond vs. army Captain Bond (or whatever his rank is).

Post by **The Sweeney** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:02 pm

Commander 0077 wrote:
TheManWithNoName wrote:
And so there are some Bond fans who feel that the new trend in Bond (drifting away from the Bond of the previous films and the books) is not a good thing for the franchise.

Whoa! I'll have to stop you there.

CR is the closest thing to the books since LTK and OHMSS. The new trend is a return to the books.

Harvey Wallbanger · Post by **Harvey Wallbanger** » Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:54 am

Commander 0077 wrote:
TheManWithNoName wrote:
I mean, what sort of fans would boycott something their a fan of that makes millions of other people happy? A true Bond fan would stick by the franchise regardless of who the actor is.

(sorry about the spelling, it is late and I haven't gotten much sleep)
I think a true Bond fan is similar to a 'true patriot' ... a true patriot doesn't support his government right or wrong. There would never be an America with that attitude. And so there are some Bond fans who feel that the new trend in Bond (drifting away from the Bond of the previous films and the books) is not a good thing for the franchise.

Another example. If Superman were cast as a blond Harry Potter, would this be acceptable just because he is called Superman? There would be many 'true fans' who would say that Superman must have a certain look; otherwise a ton of actors could play him. If James Bond is going to look like everyone's next door neighbor, then anyone can play him. (I am just commenting on the physicality of the character here).

There is nothing wrong with someone preferring DG as Bond; but there is also nothing wrong with not preferring him. It may boil down to Commander Bond vs. army Captain Bond (or whatever his rank is).

good points. from the start fans on one side or the other arguing that they are the "true fans". Both are wrong.

The true fan is the guy -or gal- in the lay-z-boy with his feet up -popcorn bucket on his chest enjoying the hell out of the adventure.
The arguing about "true fans" is close to the bulls**t "true patriot" arguments here.
-or worse religion.

Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:55 am

TheManWithNoName wrote:

And so there are some Bond fans who feel that the new trend in Bond (drifting away from the Bond of the previous films and the books) is not a good thing for the franchise.

I'm not sure what a Brosnan Fan Boy is. But I do agree with you that "drifting away from the Bond of the previous films and the books is not a good thing for the franchise"

paco chaos · Post by **paco chaos** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:04 pm

a true Bond fan would stick by the franchise no matter who plays the part? what? does that mean if EON had cast Steve Buscemi as Bond, we should all support this choice? who is this person?
I know that any actor who plays Bond has a limited amount of time in the role. as much as I enjoyed Pierce in the role, I knew he wouldn't be Bond forever. Had EON replaced him with someone a bit more appropriate I wouldn't have minded that much.

Connery007 · Post by **Connery007** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:54 am

paco chaos wrote:a true Bond fan would stick by the franchise no matter who plays the part? what? does that mean if EON had cast Steve Buscemi as Bond, we should all support this choice? who is this person?

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:40 am

The Sweeney wrote:
James wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:
James wrote:How many times is someone who can barely spell going to pop up and post under the impression that everyone who dislikes Daniel Craig playing Bond is obsessed with Pierce Brosnan and wanted him in the role until he was ninety?
Because it appeared as though most boycotters wanted that, according to this website.

And there are plenty of anti-Craigers that have popped up over on Mi6 from time-to-time, with a tendancy to not be able to spell or write properly....

The original webmaster of CNB went for the Brosnan angle. You've exprapolated that and applied it to all the Craig naysayers. It's like a political party. There are a range of views within.

And please don't diss Charles Vine and BJMDDS like that
True. There are a range of views within this forum, this is why I spend so much time on here, to try and understand the opposing view.

It's just the stigma that has been attached to this website will take a long time to wear off.

As for bjmdds and Vine, I was actually referring to craigisntbond on Mi6. At least Vine and bj can write properly, even if what they write is utter nonsense.......

Subjective counter views are 'utter nonsense', Sweeney? Since when is dissenting opinion ,which defines a personal taste, viewed in such a manner? One must recognize ALL personal opinions, not cloned comment in a repititious fashion, good buddy.

Post by **Skywalker** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:14 am

There is no desputing that everyone who posts on any Bond forums have a passion for the franchise. Whether this be because of certain actors, style of films, novels or everything to do with Bond, we all have something to contribute.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:57 pm

bjmdds wrote:Subjective counter views are 'utter nonsense', Sweeney? Since when is dissenting opinion ,which defines a personal taste, viewed in such a manner? One must recognize ALL personal opinions, not cloned comment in a repititious fashion, good buddy.

I was joking, bj.......

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:16 pm

You should know that bj doesn't always get the joke Sweeney.

Post by **bjmdds** » Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:09 pm

The Sweeney wrote:
bjmdds wrote:Subjective counter views are 'utter nonsense', Sweeney? Since when is dissenting opinion ,which defines a personal taste, viewed in such a manner? One must recognize ALL personal opinions, not cloned comment in a repititious fashion, good buddy.
I was joking, bj.......

OK then. Seeing the Stones in the UK?

Classic Bond Forum

Dear Brosnan fan boys.

Dear Brosnan fan boys.

Re: Dear Brosnan fan boys.

Re: Dear Brosnan fan boys.

Re: Dear Brosnan fan boys.