Main reason why Craig is not Bond..

[The Sweeney]

As for EON plants on forums, maybe there could have been one or two

One or two is all it takes. Political lobbyists use sophisticated "persona management software" to allow their social media interns to create literally dozens of sock puppets, sometimes as many as 70, each with their own backstory and personality traits. It's hard to beleve that this couldn't also have commercial implications, say for a studio trying to create internet buzz around its movies. So when John from London and Jenny from Chicago both tell me that Craig is "Flemming's Bond", I get suspicious.

I would have expected plants to at least spell correctly. It could always be just idiots on forums who cannot spell correctly? Hell, there are plenty of these types of uneducated morons over on IMDB.

[The Saint 007]

Sure, I guess Bender from Futurama would work. But the robot monkey isn't a bad idea either.

The Monkey is better.

Yeah, I like the monkey too. Plus, he has some other different forms as well:

[bjamesobrad]

It wasn't Pierce's fault though Sweeney, that's the point. He wanted to make Bond more serious, but not so serious everyone forgets to have fun watching the films, right FBF?

DC got the good stuff and Pierce didn't. One of the reasons why the traditional tall and dark-haired Bond has no place in this world, and Bond shall be played by ethnic actors, freak & weirdos, robots, and pets....once DC retires. Saint....what your take on robots and pets playing Bond?

Robots, pets, scruffy unshaven self-employed landscaping contractors, are all fine. There's no more guideline for the casting of Bond or other supporting characters, anything goes. Hmmm, robots and pets somehow made me think of the robot monkey from the TimeSplitters games.



He was a popular character in the game, so perhaps he could be Bond.

I think someone needs to stick up for Brosnan's films here. I don't think they were as bad as Everyone says. The World Is Not Enough is one of my personal favorites out of the whole franchise. With Die Another Day, the one that gets picked on the most, I found it to be a VERY entertaining film. Sure the CGI wind surfing was awefull as well as Graves suit at the end but all in all I was entertained. I didn't even mind the invisible car so much. Pierce does his best jobs as 007. Halle Berry and Rosamund Pike are both sexy as heck. The car battle is bad @$$. The Ice hotel is less outlandish than a volcano lair or an underwater city.

[The Saint 007]

Brosnan's Bond films have some great moments and entertainment value, no doubt. But I just think things could have been even better if Albert Broccoli was still around to produce the films.

[Napoleon Solo]

Quantum Of Solace does get bashed, but I've seen plenty of forum nerds that give the film praise. I remember a while ago, I was having a discussion here about how there was a list the worst Bond films thread on IMDb, and anytime someone mentioned Quantum Of Solace, they would almost instantly get attacked. Personally, I consider Quantum Of Solace to be the worst Bond film in the series, and what amazes me is that it still manages to get review averages that are on par or even slightly higher than some of the Connery, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan Bonds.

Yes, Craig does have his fans. But many of his fans consist of younger people who tend to frequent the forums more. So on the Internet, you'll most likely see more Craig fans than you would see Connery or Moore fans. I'm not trying to argue with you Sweeney. I understand that Craig is pretty popular as Bond, but I'm tired of all the constant praise he gets for things that don't deserve it, as well as the hypocrisy. It was wrong for any of the former Bond actors to age in the slightest, but Craig gets a pass because he has muscles, and the withered look now supposedly adds to the realism of how his work as a spy is hard on him. Or how Brosnan fixing his tie was lame, but Craig fixing his cuffs is awesome. References to the classic Bond films was awful in Die Another Day, but perfectly fine in Skyfall, and the list goes on. Once again, I understand that Craig is popular and whatnot, but I dislike the whole one-sided attitude that's been going on recently.

I think you have to take things in context. The references in SF were tastefully done, I thought. In QoS I wasn't impressed though. DAD was just a bad film period, including the references.

The adjusting cuffs link is far more subtle than the underwater tie-straightening, you have to admit. It happens very quickly, and is over before you've even noticed it. The underwater tie straightening is totally unnecessary, accompanied by a comedy moment theme tune from Arnold to bolster the point home even further. Nasty and tacky.

WHOA. The tie straightening in TWINE and the cuff straightening in Skyfall *each* take up how much screen time? One second? Two?

How can one be "totally uncecessary" while the other "far more subtle"?

It comes down to this: if the actor you like does it, it's great. If it's an actor you don't like, it's terrible. In both cases, it's an attempt to do a Bondian gesture. Each takes up the same amount of time. I liked both moments but you can't tell me one is vastly superior to the other.

[The Sweeney]

Quantum Of Solace does get bashed, but I've seen plenty of forum nerds that give the film praise. I remember a while ago, I was having a discussion here about how there was a list the worst Bond films thread on IMDb, and anytime someone mentioned Quantum Of Solace, they would almost instantly get attacked. Personally, I consider Quantum Of Solace to be the worst Bond film in the series, and what amazes me is that it still manages to get review averages that are on par or even slightly higher than some of the Connery, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan Bonds.

Yes, Craig does have his fans. But many of his fans consist of younger people who tend to frequent the forums more. So on the Internet, you'll most likely see more Craig fans than you would see Connery or Moore fans. I'm not trying to argue with you Sweeney. I understand that Craig is pretty popular as Bond, but I'm tired of all the constant praise he gets for things that don't deserve it, as well as the hypocrisy. It was wrong for any of the former Bond actors to age in the slightest, but Craig gets a pass because he has muscles, and the withered look now supposedly adds to the realism of how his work as a spy is hard on him. Or how Brosnan fixing his tie was lame, but Craig fixing his cuffs is awesome. References to the classic Bond films was awful in Die Another Day, but perfectly fine in Skyfall, and the list goes on. Once again, I understand that Craig is popular and whatnot, but I dislike the whole one-sided attitude that's been going on recently.

I think you have to take things in context. The references in SF were tastefully done, I thought. In QoS I wasn't impressed though. DAD was just a bad film period, including the references.

The adjusting cuffs link is far more subtle than the underwater tie-straightening, you have to admit. It happens very quickly, and is over before you've even noticed it. The underwater tie straightening is totally unnecessary, accompanied by a comedy moment theme tune from Arnold to bolster the point home even further. Nasty and tacky.

WHOA. The tie straightening in TWINE and the cuff straightening in Skyfall *each* take up how much screen time? One second? Two?

How can one be "totally uncecessary" while the other "far more subtle"?

It comes down to this: if the actor you like does it, it's great. If it's an actor you don't like, it's terrible. In both cases, it's an attempt to do a Bondian gesture. Each takes up the same amount of time. I liked both moments but you can't tell me one is vastly superior to the other.

It's in context of how it appears. Brozza's tie straightening in GF was far less a comedy gesture than the ridiculous spectacle in TWINE. To me, that scene is just as bad as the double-pigeon in MR. It is highlighted as a comedy moment, include Arnold's little ditty in the soundtrack.

Brozza tie straightening in GE is on par with Craig's in SF. Both are still subtle enough to not make you groan and take you out of the movie, whereas the moment in TWINE is truly shocking.

[Eye Of The Tiger]

Hello everyone! Anyone remember me?

This poll should have had an "All of the above" option.

Daniel Craig blows as Bond. As long as he remains as Bond, and as long as BB is calling all of the shots, I will not watch another Bond film.

I had been a Bond fan since Octopussy came out. I was 11 years old at the time. I went to see each new Bond film a few times each, and bought all 20 of the official Bond films, as well as NSNA. I bought a lot of the merchandise. I spent a lot of money on the Bond franchise over the years.

I did not go to see Casino Royale however, because of Daniel Craig and all of the crap that BB was pulling with the franchise. A full year went by after the release of CR without me having seen it. After a year, a friend of mine gave me a copy of CR. It sat there unwatched for an additional year before I finally decided to watch it one night.
I became so bored with it half way through that I went to the kitchen to get something to eat, and I just let it keep playing while I did that. I never do that, other than with that steaming pile of crap.

I have not seen QOS to this day, and I will not watch it. A friend of mine who has been a huge Bond fan even longer than I have went and saw it in the theater. He was so bored with it that he walked out of the theater about 75% of the way into the film. He hated CR. It was his least favorite Bond film by far. But he said that QOS was too bad to even finish sitting through.

As I said, as long as DC is in the role of Bond, and as long as BB continues to destroy the once proud franchise, I will not see another new Bond film.

I just bought the Bond 50 set on Blu-Ray. It's the first money that I've spent on anything Bond related since DC was hired as Bond. I bought the set because of how great the first 20 REAL Bond films were, and that I wanted to upgrade over the DVD's, and that I got it at a great price. If it wasn't for the fact that I don't want to destroy the set where it couldn't be sold at a later date, I would turn the CR and QOS discs into coasters.

DC and BB, you've ruined the once proud franchise. Cubby would be ashamed of you both.

[The Sweeney]

DC and BB, you've ruined the once proud franchise. Cubby would be ashamed of you both.

Welcome back Tiger.
With regards Cubby being ashamed of the franchise, I don't think so somehow. SF looks like it could actually be the biggest ever earner for a Bond movie, topping the previously unbeaten record of TB, and managed to win over the majority of critics too in the process.

If SF manages to bag a few Oscars along the way, this is game set and match to Babs I think. 50 years on, and the franchise has hardly ran out of steam. On the contrary, its bigger than ever!

I would hardly think Cubby would be ashamed right now. More than likely he would be rubbing his hands together, looking at all the cash flooding in to EON HQ.....

[Napoleon Solo]

Brozza tie straightening in GE is on par with Craig's in SF. Both are still subtle enough to not make you groan and take you out of the movie, whereas the moment in TWINE is truly shocking.

We'll have to agree to disagree. "Brozza" is one of the main terms used to deride Brosnan on Internet message boards. People who don't like "Brozza" dump on him, people who like him tend to be less critical. I just don't see how the TWINE moment is truly shocking on a par with the double taking bird in Moonraker.

[The Saint 007]

I also don't see how the tie straightening in The World Is Not Enough is overly outlandish, but everyone has their own opinions.

The same argument goes for CGI effects. Die Another Day constantly gets bashed for its poor CGI effects. But Craig's Bonds also have some scenes with bad CGI, and yet these moments are swept under the carpet most of the time. Now I've been seeing comments about some poor CGI effects in Skyfall, but since I haven't seen the film yet, I can't make any comments. However, I can say that Quantum Of Solace has some bad CGI, particularly that ridiculous freefall scene. People can say what they want about Moonraker, but that skydiving duel between Bond and Jaws in the opening of the film was actually done FOR REAL. And the effects for the climatic space battle are far better than all of the awful CGI we're getting in the Bond films now, in my opinion.

I know some people will probably say that the use of CGI is more limited in Craig's Bonds than it was in Die Another Day. That may be true, but if you don't like bad CGI in one Bond film, then you shouldn't give it a pass in another just because it's more limited, or because Craig is your favourite Bond. Regardless of who's playing Bond, I personally can't stand the use of CGI in the films, especially when it looks like a cheap video game.

[Kristatos]

I know some people will probably say that the use of CGI is more limited in Craig's Bonds than it was in Die Another Day. That may be true, but if you don't like bad CGI in one Bond film, then you shouldn't give it a pass in another just because it's more limited, or because Craig is your favourite Bond. Regardless of who's playing Bond, I personally can't stand the use of CGI in the films, especially when it looks like a cheap video game.

Totally agree about the double standard. If Bond were to drive an invisible car in Bond 24, you can bet that the Craigskis would praise it as "pure Flemming".

[The Sweeney]

I know some people will probably say that the use of CGI is more limited in Craig's Bonds than it was in Die Another Day. That may be true, but if you don't like bad CGI in one Bond film, then you shouldn't give it a pass in another just because it's more limited, or because Craig is your favourite Bond. Regardless of who's playing Bond, I personally can't stand the use of CGI in the films, especially when it looks like a cheap video game.

Totally agree about the double standard. If Bond were to drive an invisible car in Bond 24, you can bet that the Craigskis would praise it as "pure Flemming".

I certainly wouldn't.

[The Sweeney]

I also don't see how the tie straightening in The World Is Not Enough is overly outlandish, but everyone has their own opinions.

The same argument goes for CGI effects. Die Another Day constantly gets bashed for its poor CGI effects. But Craig's Bonds also have some scenes with bad CGI, and yet these moments are swept under the carpet most of the time. Now I've been seeing comments about some poor CGI effects in Skyfall, but since I haven't seen the film yet, I can't make any comments. However, I can say that Quantum Of Solace has some bad CGI, particularly that ridiculous freefall scene. People can say what they want about Moonraker, but that skydiving duel between Bond and Jaws in the opening of the film was actually done FOR REAL. And the effects for the climatic space battle are far better than all of the awful CGI we're getting in the Bond films now, in my opinion.

I know some people will probably say that the use of CGI is more limited in Craig's Bonds than it was in Die Another Day. That may be true, but if you don't like bad CGI in one Bond film, then you shouldn't give it a pass in another just because it's more limited, or because Craig is your favourite Bond. Regardless of who's playing Bond, I personally can't stand the use of CGI in the films, especially when it looks like a cheap video game.

I haven't really noticed much of any CGI is Craig's films, other than the freefall scene. I know CGI is in his movies, but I haven't noticed it - therefore its done its job.

Whereas in Brozza's film's the CGI is very noticeable, another gripe I have with his movies.

[The Sweeney]

"Brozza" is one of the main terms used to deride Brosnan on Internet message boards. People who don't like "Brozza" dump on him, people who like him tend to be less critical.

I guess its no different to people on here calling Craig the `Cr-eggster', or `Cr-egg'.

[Kristatos]

I don't see "Brozza" as necessarily derogatory. I've used it in the past, and didn't mean any disrespect by it. It's just a nickname, like "Sir Rog" or "Seannery".

[Napoleon Solo]

"Brozza" is one of the main terms used to deride Brosnan on Internet message boards. People who don't like "Brozza" dump on him, people who like him tend to be less critical.

I guess its no different to people on here calling Craig the `Cr-eggster', or `Cr-egg'.

Absolutely the same thing.

[Napoleon Solo]

I don't see "Brozza" as necessarily derogatory. I've used it in the past, and didn't mean any disrespect by it. It's just a nickname, like "Sir Rog" or "Seannery".

Understood. But when I've seen it, it's normally used like this, "The problem with Brozza's films..." or "I'm so glad Brozza isn't doing them anymore" or "Brozza almost killed the franchise."

[The Sweeney]

I don't see "Brozza" as necessarily derogatory. I've used it in the past, and didn't mean any disrespect by it. It's just a nickname, like "Sir Rog" or "Seannery".

Understood. But when I've seen it, it's normally used like this, "The problem with Brozza's films..." or "I'm so glad Brozza isn't doing them anymore" or "Brozza almost killed the franchise."

So you are ok seeing Craig's name being dragged through the mud with various nicknames, but not ok with Brozza getting the same treatment?

[Napoleon Solo]

I don't see "Brozza" as necessarily derogatory. I've used it in the past, and didn't mean any disrespect by it. It's just a nickname, like "Sir Rog" or "Seannery".

Understood. But when I've seen it, it's normally used like this, "The problem with Brozza's films..." or "I'm so glad Brozza isn't doing them anymore" or "Brozza almost killed the franchise."

So you are ok seeing Craig's name being dragged through the mud with various nicknames, but not ok with Brozza getting the same treatment?

Here's what I'm saying: If a fan likes one actor, they'll praise aspects of that actor's movie yet may criticize the same, or similar, aspect of a movie featuring the actor they don't like.

I will admit the references to Brosnan's tie-straightening vs. Craig's cuff straightening caught my eye because, to me, they seem awfully similar and have about the same effect. I also acknowledge reasonable people can disagree about it.

In the case of the cuff straightening, when it first showed up in the trailers, people were saying that refelcted the return of traditional Bond elements. And I'd agree. I'd say the TWINE tie straightening serves the same purpose. You don't, and that's fine. As I said, agree to disagree.

There are other examples that have nothing to do with Craig. For example, there are first-generation fans, who grew up on Connery, who still foam at the mouth about Roger Moore. It's all his fault the movies are so jokey, etc. But what about Never Say Never Again, where Connery had a lot of control (including bringing in writers to redo the script) and it ended up jokey? "It's not Sean's fault!" etc. I think it's fairly common that fans are sometimes inconsistent. I also know I'm not going to change that but I may still point out the inconsistencies every once in a while.

[Kristatos]

There are other examples that have nothing to do with Craig. For example, there are first-generation fans, who grew up on Connery, who still foam at the mouth about Roger Moore. It's all his fault the movies are so jokey, etc. But what about Never Say Never Again, where Connery had a lot of control (including bringing in writers to redo the script) and it ended up jokey? "It's not Sean's fault!" etc.

Yes, didn't he specifically bring in Dick Clement and Ian Le Frenais in order to put more humour in the script (including a joke recycled from Porridge)?