Dirty Benny's Weekly Rant

[Captain Arthurs]

The last four films are very weird. Barbara Broccoli gained control of the Bond series when various people passed away. She then insisted on casting her friend Daniel Craig and using a warmed up Bond origin idea of Michael G. Wilson's. Casino Royale was regarded as one of the greatest films ever made, and it's success meant that a new series was created with a new tone, Bond backstory and a different Bond.

They have kept all this as it is a success - although it is not Bond and awful. I have not watched Spectre. What's the point?

[FormerBondFan]

They have kept all this as it is a success - although it is not Bond and awful. I have not watched Spectre. What's the point?

Buy it and destroy it like what those disco haters did to disco records back in the late 70s.

[bjmdds]

No point Captain. It is terrible and boring especially when his foster brother drills 2 holes into Cr-egg's Bond's head yet it has no effect on him.

[dirtybenny]

Researching my next rant and came across this little gem on Craig's Wikipedia page:

Craig has described his portrayal of Bond as an anti-hero: "The question I keep asking myself while playing the role is, 'Am I the good guy or just a bad guy who works for the good side?' Bond's role, after all, is that of an assassin when you come down to it. I have never played a role in which someone's dark side shouldn't be explored. I don't think it should be confusing by the end of the film, but during the film you should be questioning who he is."


I can't think of another actor who misunderstood his character as much as Craig does Bond. Bond a bad guy on the good side? Craig, this is James Bloody Bond here, not some "hump" from a film noir! Also note that assassin malarkey cropping up again.

[Kristatos]

I don't think that Bond, as Fleming conceived him, is someone whose company I'd particularly enjoy. But I don't think he's a bad guy, by any stretch of the imagination.

[The Saint 007]

On to the critics who fall neatly in to the “Johnny Come Lately” category, those who didn’t like Bond until the “Bond” had gone. They panned the Spectre true, but many did for all the wrong reasons. I saw too many reviews that poo-pooed the “fun vibe” being given off by this most current outing. Not that it fell flat, (Which it most definitely did) but that it was attempted at all!

I saw another example of a Craig fan complaining about Spectre having too much "old Bond BS". This person then goes on lecturing another poster about how they probably never heard of "Ian FLEMMING", or read any of the books. Ah yes, the double M misspelling of Fleming's name that I've seen all too often during this era. While in some cases this may just be an accidental typo, it's likely that most of these know-it-alls actually think it's the correct spelling.

[Veronica]

If you refer to Bond elements as "old Bond BS" you shouldn't consider yourself a Bond fan.
That "old Bond BS" is what made Bond in the first place.
By changing everything about Bond Barbara got a whole other bunch of people that she needs to please with every new movie,and that bunch consists of people who were just "too good" for Bond before it all got "serious" and "realistic".

[Kristatos]

I saw another example of a Craig fan complaining about Spectre having too much "old Bond BS". This person then goes on lecturing another poster about how they probably never heard of "Ian FLEMMING", or read any of the books. Ah yes, the double M misspelling of Fleming's name that I've seen all too often during this era. While in some cases this may just be an accidental typo, it's likely that most of these know-it-alls actually think it's the correct spelling.

Yes, it's very odd that so many people with the same opinions should make the same mistake. There are two possible explanations I can think of:

1) A paid troll is posting online using multiple user IDs,and the "Flemming" mistake is his/her tell. This sounds like a paranoid fantasy, but is actually quite commonplace. IMDb is filled with obvious shills posting how excited they are about this or that upcoming movie.
2) There are different people making the mistake because they don't know any better. Their opinions are formed entirely by copying what other people are saying online and the only knowledge they have of Fleming comes from other people who spell his name Flemming. When they insist that "Craig is Flemming's Bond and anyone who doesn't like him just wants a return to invisible cars and double-taking pigeons", they are simply parroting conventional wisdom and passing it off as their own opinion.

[dirtybenny]

I don't think that Bond, as Fleming conceived him, is someone whose company I'd particularly enjoy. But I don't think he's a bad guy, by any stretch of the imagination.

To hear Craig you'd think he was playing Russell Crow's character Bud White from LA Confidential, a cop (on the side of good) but a brute (a "bad" man). The more you give this comment serious thought the more its logic begins to dissolve. After Bond's beating in CR, (the novel) he has second thoughts about his vocation, in essence stating both sides are "good" or "bad" depending on which side of the political fence you stand on. However after Vesper's suicide, he changes his mind, filling himself with a steely resolve to fight SMIRSH, as he find their tactics to be a greater evil far and beyond standard espionage. So in short Bond questions which side is "good", but never condones "bad" tactics.

[Goldeneye]

Researching my next rant and came across this little gem on Craig's Wikipedia page:

Craig has described his portrayal of Bond as an anti-hero: "The question I keep asking myself while playing the role is, 'Am I the good guy or just a bad guy who works for the good side?' Bond's role, after all, is that of an assassin when you come down to it. I have never played a role in which someone's dark side shouldn't be explored. I don't think it should be confusing by the end of the film, but during the film you should be questioning who he is."


I can't think of another actor who misunderstood his character as much as Craig does Bond. Bond a bad guy on the good side? Craig, this is James Bloody Bond here, not some "hump" from a film noir! Also note that assassin malarkey cropping up again.

There is another early quote where he talks about "Bond being (becoming?) the man we love to hate." I may have to context a bit off, this always stuck me because it was so out of touch with the reality of the Bond franchise. Bond in 1962 (1963 to the rest of the world) was not a villain, he was a chivalrous man with a code of conduct separating from his foes. Craig in CR had a blood thirsty aspect to him, thinking of the fuel tuck explosion with the strange satisfied grin. Clear to me this guy was not Bond, still the power of the franchise trumps all. For now anyhow. Enough people seem thrilled Bond was "serious", "dark and gritty", more catch phrases than actually meaning. If they had to define it I doubt most could, not without slamming Brosnan. EON actually trotted out the stunt team to say Craig is a real man, he sweats, Pierce perspires. OK fine they really have no choice but to say what they were told, and this rhetoric from the top for the most part has died out by 2012. Still it puzzles me how EON got a way with selling a defective Bond that lacked all the charm and charisma of the original.

Maybe it was because popular belief is books a movie is based on are normally very different, so when EON sold Craig's movies as back to Fleming many thought it was closer to the book. Which is sad because there were already some great Bond movies that interpret and capture the spirit of the books.

[Goldeneye]

I saw another example of a Craig fan complaining about Spectre having too much "old Bond BS". This person then goes on lecturing another poster about how they probably never heard of "Ian FLEMMING", or read any of the books. Ah yes, the double M misspelling of Fleming's name that I've seen all too often during this era. While in some cases this may just be an accidental typo, it's likely that most of these know-it-alls actually think it's the correct spelling.

Yes, it's very odd that so many people with the same opinions should make the same mistake. There are two possible explanations I can think of:

1) A paid troll is posting online using multiple user IDs,and the "Flemming" mistake is his/her tell. This sounds like a paranoid fantasy, but is actually quite commonplace. IMDb is filled with obvious shills posting how excited they are about this or that upcoming movie.
2) There are different people making the mistake because they don't know any better. Their opinions are formed entirely by copying what other people are saying online and the only knowledge they have of Fleming comes from other people who spell his name Flemming. When they insist that "Craig is Flemming's Bond and anyone who doesn't like him just wants a return to invisible cars and double-taking pigeons", they are simply parroting conventional wisdom and passing it off as their own opinion.

I'm guilt of this spelling sometimes too as you probably remember. Usually I type it correctly then spell check would flag it, I'm on autopilot checking text. Very bad habit. Maybe the modern world of writing has become smaller because of built in text correction. It changed so most recently, as we type words get altered, sentences shift. The main page we have software which tries to changes everything from tense, to syntax.

[Kristatos]

The odd typo is one thing, but these people always spell his name "Flemming".

[dirtybenny]

To GE's first point, "fans" don't really know what Bond is all about, ask them to define Bond and you'll get tuxedo, martini, and maybe Aston Martin or PPK. So whatever you throw down in front of them they will project those things on to it, no matter how rubbish it may be, in fact the blander the canvas the easier it is to project. Most of these folks barely know who Fleming was, the have an inkling that there was this chap called Eon Flemming who wrote some books that Bond was loosely based on and if Babz, the authority on all things Bond, says that this or that film is closer to the original than the others they will take her word for it.

For the stunt team to hold Craig out as a man's man compared to Brosnan just makes the case against him stronger, Bond is meant to perspire he's not some brute of a bloke busting his way through the scenery, but slides effortlessly amongst it with a grin and easy charm.

To Craig and Babz, Bond is the man they love to hate because he comes from an earlier time, when the social code was different from our own, being chauvinistic wasn't the sin it is today. Which is a good thing, but Babz and Co. have latched on to that and view Bond through that prism, magnifying it and hating him for it, rather than just dialing back that minor aspect of the character.

[Omega]

Well in the rights circles it's popular to hate Bond. The enlightened people better than me never liked bond because of whatever perceived sin against women they want to be upset about. Why we got that woman's day psa. Yes! Bonds finally brought down a peg by lady m and drag! /sarcasm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Veronica]

Bond in a drag,Bong being gay in Skyfall and Brofeld.
I don't know which of these things is worse...
And Barbara has the courage to say things like:"This is Fleming's Bond". Fleming and Cubby are rolling in their graves.

[dirtybenny]

Bond in a drag,Bong being gay in Skyfall and Brofeld.
I don't know which of these things is worse...
And Barbara has the courage to say things like:"This is Fleming's Bond". Fleming and Cubby are rolling in their graves.

It's certainly not a question of if they're spinning in their Graves but at what RPM!

[acid]

Rant 34: Specturd: The Rise of BROfeld

Anyway blah, blah, blah, a car chase ensues, an obvious “wink” at DAD as a supped up Jaguar chases Bond’s supped up Aston. The chase is obviously low speed dressed as fast paced on absolutely empty streets! The great car chases are done around traffic to illustrate the speed and intensify the danger! During all this we see the controls for Bond’s “gadgets”, I kid you not it consists of four toggle switches pasted to a cheap bit of sheet metal, with those cheap 1978 plastic punch labels, a 6 year old could do better with bits from radio shack! The hilarious thing is these cheap analogue switches control a modern LCD display!

D.B. I know this was quite an old rant but I just wanted to point out that the 70s punch labels are a rip off (or "homage" if you must) from Little Nellie. Still, they made more sense on Little Nellie which is supposed to be a minimalist ultra lightweight autogyro that can be carried in suitcases. In a modern day luxury Aston, not so much and more to the point I'm sure you know my feelings on all the homages by now.

Edit: Corrected spelling of Nellie

[dirtybenny]

D.B. I know this was quite an old rant but I just wanted to point out that the 70s punch labels are a rip off (or "homage" if you must) from Little Nelly. Still, they made more sense on Little Nelly which is supposed to be a minimalist ultra lightweight autogyro that can be carried in suitcases. In a modern day luxury Aston, not so much and more to the point I'm sure you know my feelings on all the homages by now.

Acis, I think you and I are in complete agreement on the "homages "

As to the tape labels, I forgot about them being used on Little Nelly, but I think that had a lot to do with the fact that as you say they are not out of place there. Add to that in 1967 those things were new technology and added to the presentation. Also the control panel and switches were done in a way that it looked as if a professional had done it rather than a child. Compare that to the DB10 and it's bare switches on a bent bit of metal, add in the cheap labels 40 years past their expiration date, not to mention hanging over the edge of the mounting bracket and the whole package which was rubbish to begin with is sunk to new lows!

[Omega]

Do you think that maybe now BVS has flopped with fans that maybe it will start to be recognised that a movie can make what seems like a lot of money can still be a bad movie ?

Craig said qos was financially rewarding, other wise he's embarrassed to be associated with it even if he helped write it or whatever


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dirtybenny]

Do you think that maybe now BVS has flopped with fans that maybe it will start to be recognised that a movie can make what seems like a lot of money can still be a bad movie ?

I hope so, but I doubt it, this is no new phenomenon, there have been plenty of bad movies which have made good money, and folks still point to a movie's receipts as vindication.

Craig said qos was financially rewarding, other wise he's embarrassed to be associated with it even if he helped write it or whatever

Funny how that works, Craig had his hands all over that film, from writing to production, and even he can't defend it!