Dirty Benny's Weekly Rant

[Count_Lippe]

I don't remember, was it really Bond's own family who had the motto in the book version?

[Kristatos]

I don't remember, was it really Bond's own family who had the motto in the book version?

I think so. "The world is not enough", in Latin, is actually the motto of a Dorset family called Bond, so I assume that's where Fleming got it from (it'd be a hell of a coincidence otherwise!)

[dirtybenny]

Funny you mention Harry Potter, Commander, as I mention him briefly in the rant I'm working on. I've never read the books or saw the movies so I can't speak to them specifically, but to your point, Hollywood seems to have forgotten films are supposed to be an escape from reality, not an excuse to "rip from the headlines" and shoe horn commentary about contemporary social issues. A good example is the Lone Ranger film. Topics ranging (pardon the pun) from the corporate greed, war atrocities, and class warfare. Unfortunately quite a few people think this passes for "smart" and "insightful" writing.

That seems very restrictive. "Films are supposed to be an escape from reality" - what, all films? Is there no room at all for anything other than escapist entertainment? And even populist films have always reflected the times in which they were made. To pick a random example, the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers was rooted in the red scares and McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s. Even the Bond films have often been based on topical events from the beginning, such as the space race. My issue with the Craig films, and even Goldeneye to an extent, is that it's so artlessly done that you feel like you're being lectured. Whereas something like TND can base its villain on Rupert Murdoch (with a dash of Bill Gates), but still be light-hearted and fun.

It seems once again my ham-fisted reliance on hyperbole and generalization have made me look like a buffoon. Of course not all films "must be an escape from reality". Especially in the definition you took away from my post. I think the TND take on Rupert Murdoch was a fun sort of jab at current events, what I meant was, when I go to a film that promises escapism I don't want to get a dissertation on the evils of colonialism or some such example of the worlds "evils", I get enough of that from the nightly news. What I trying to say in a paragraph is what you so elegantly touched on in a sentence Kris; Which is I don't want to be lectured. Take my Lone Ranger example, that movie felt like a love letter to the "Occupy" movement here in the states, if at the end of your movie I feel as though I sat through a two hour long political indoctrination, whether from the left or right, especially if it is purported to be an "escapist film", then I haven't really escaped.

[Veronica]

You are right once again Benny. This is why this "serious"mix of Bourne and Batman reboot literally goes all over James Bond that existed for forty years. DAD was like a pure entertainment-the movie was made not so long ago and it made HUGE money. And you know what? I read some comments on forums from that period a.k.a. 2002,2003 and people LOVED DAD-many of the fans rated it as Brosnans 2nd best or even the best Bond movie..and it is impossible IMO that all these people changed their oppinions and now suck every crap Babs serves...I think many fans that were on the forums prior to reboot are not going there anymore-some forums are taken over by Craig fanboys.
I can watch Bourne or any movie like that today but I can't watch it several times. It may interest me the first time but Bond movies have this special thing about them. This feeling when you watch them...Craig movies don't have it.and Craig doesn't have the things Bond actor needs to have...

[dirtybenny]

You are right once again Benny. This is why this "serious"mix of Bourne and Batman reboot literally goes all over James Bond that existed for forty years. DAD was like a pure entertainment-the movie was made not so long ago and it made HUGE money. And you know what? I read some comments on forums from that period a.k.a. 2002,2003 and people LOVED DAD-many of the fans rated it as Brosnans 2nd best or even the best Bond movie..and it is impossible IMO that all these people changed their oppinions and now suck every crap Babs serves...I think many fans that were on the forums prior to reboot are not going there anymore-some forums are taken over by Craig fanboys.
I can watch Bourne or any movie like that today but I can't watch it several times. It may interest me the first time but Bond movies have this special thing about them. This feeling when you watch them...Craig movies don't have it.and Craig doesn't have the things Bond actor needs to have...

Thanks Veronica, I also find the classic Bonds infinitely re watchable due to the fun escapism they exude. The stories are good (some better than others) but they don't matter, I've seen each film dozens of times, own them all on DVD, I can recite the dialogue by heart, but I still stop and watch them when broadcast on T.V. I tune in to see the style, watch Connery's effortless cool, Moore's tongue in cheek fun, not to mention the exotic locations, and everything else that makes classic Bond so great. On the other hand with these new films as you said once is enough.

[Veronica]

You are right once again Benny. This is why this "serious"mix of Bourne and Batman reboot literally goes all over James Bond that existed for forty years. DAD was like a pure entertainment-the movie was made not so long ago and it made HUGE money. And you know what? I read some comments on forums from that period a.k.a. 2002,2003 and people LOVED DAD-many of the fans rated it as Brosnans 2nd best or even the best Bond movie..and it is impossible IMO that all these people changed their oppinions and now suck every crap Babs serves...I think many fans that were on the forums prior to reboot are not going there anymore-some forums are taken over by Craig fanboys.
I can watch Bourne or any movie like that today but I can't watch it several times. It may interest me the first time but Bond movies have this special thing about them. This feeling when you watch them...Craig movies don't have it.and Craig doesn't have the things Bond actor needs to have...

Thanks Veronica, I also find the classic Bonds infinitely re watchable due to the fun escapism they exude. The stories are good (some better than others) but they don't matter, I've seen each film dozens of times, own them all on DVD, I can recite the dialogue by heart, but I still stop and watch them when broadcast on T.V. I tune in to see the style, watch Connery's effortless cool, Moore's tongue in cheek fun, not to mention the exotic locations, and everything else that makes classic Bond so great. On the other hand with these new films as you said once is enough.

Yeah,the same is with me as well. I mean,when I watch Dr.No for example and Connery famously introduces himself in that casino and that's like a pinnacle of coolness I am like "Oh yeah,James Bond look at him!" or that casino scene in Thunderball when Bond "pokes" Largo for fun-"I see there's a spectre on your shoulder" and that's like the coolest thing ever.
Or basically every time Moore says something or just has that famous expression or raises an eyebrow I know I'm gonna have a good time.. or fixing tie in GE while driving a tank,flirting with a lady while driving and racing,or after just being almost strangled asking casually "Ask admiral where he wants his bombs to be delivered." and then everyone starts claping. and I wanna clap myself because that's just something only Bond could do. And stuff like that.
When I watched CR after literally half an hour I was like "okay,is something interesting going to happen or what?". The movie could have been really good but I don't know why is the movie so mightly praised-because it's serious? Because we all wanna be deadly serious not laugh at all while watching a Bond movie right? between the poorly constructed story,the poker game that is made by hollywood visions of it(did actually Bond play poker in the novel?),the painful love story,Craig,disgracing a Bond legacy,the melodrama with Vesper's death(kissing hands under the water?!),being overly long and just overly boring what is exactly good here?

[Veronica]

Rant 12

Critical on the Critics or The Pretension Stops Here

Today’s rant is about “film critics”.

Let me start by telling you a little story. A few days ago I was watching an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K to it’s fans) for those of you who don’t know MST3K is a program where 3 characters watch a corny B movie and make snide remarks over the top of it.

This episode was ‘Laser Blast” a movie so bad that it couldn't even be called “so bad it’s good”. The plot revolved around an outcast who finds an abandoned alien laser gun and goes on a rampage for no apparent reason. Honestly words escape me as to how bad this “movie” was the acting terrible, plot nonexistent, and production values laughable.

Now I tell you that to tell you this. Leonard Maltin gave this pile of feted cellulose 2 ½ stars. During the closing credits of “Laser Blast”, the MST3K characters read over a list of films which Maltin gave similar scores. For instance Marathon Man got 2 stars, the second and third installments of Indiana Jones got 2 ½ stars and as Kristatos points out in one of his posts Maltin gave Blade Runner 1 ½ stars.

The big question is why would Maltin score these films this way? I suppose in some twisted way Maltin read way too much in to “Laser Blast” he must have saw some phony pretentious “message” in the film, something about “post consumerism” or “the fallacy of suburbia” or some such rot, while in the others such as Indiana Jones for example he just saw pure escapism which is apparently a bad word to “serious” film people.

There are a few types of critics out there. The first is the “never saw a movie they didn't love” crowd. You can recognize them by their appearance on movie posters. “Quantum of Solace greatest piece of movie making ever” says Joe Smith of the Wichita free classifieds. The second is the artsy type. They only ever recommend French language films shot in black and white and consisting entirely of a conversation at the kitchen table. The third is the category most critics including Maltin fall in to, which is a combination of the first two. These critics love their artsy snooze fests but for the right amount of money they’ll love your overly pretentious action film if the studio’s check clears.

What does this have to do with Bond? Because Maltin is one of the many critics who lauded over Skyfall and commended Craig for his “superb performance as Bond”. Critical acclaim appears to contradict my previous post stating EON will never get the approval they so desperately crave. This however was empty praise. A couple of pretentious critics cashing a check and giving a few extra stars to a movie in a book filled with overly applauded garbage movies doesn't a classic make.

I love all of your rants benny but I have to mention this one especially. Good work!!

[Veronica]

Rant #10

Reelism v. Realism

Many lamentations have been made about how unrealistic the Bond films were previous to Craig’s tenure. However these three latest movies which are regaled as “real” and “gritty” are just as unrealistic if not more so.

One must suspend disbelief for movies that’s why they’re enjoyable, nobody wants to watch a realistic movie otherwise you could just stick your head out the window and watch people pass by.

Let’s start with Die Another Day, the go to example for the realism crowd illustrating how far of base the Bond series had become. Invisible car, para sailing tidal waves, etc. yes these are rather over the top, but they are so over the top you can’t take them seriously. Compare that to the “gritty” and “realistic” Casino Royale, where we see hopscotching between construction gantries a hundred feet in the air, scaling vertical I beams, and a sinking house… you know like in reality. Don’t even get me started on the critic’s darling Skyfall, getting shot off a 300 foot bridge, dropping subway trains through the ceiling, and holding off an army of mercenaries with “home alone” style antics. It’s akin to calling Batman more “realistic” to Superman because he’s not an alien who can fly. I say Craig’s movies are more unrealistic BECAUSE they are marketed as being realistic. What does that mean? The appearance of these over the top scenes in a “realistic” movie is so jarring they take you out of the “universe” the filmmakers are trying to create and causes them to stand out for how over the top they are, whereas in a movie which is already over the top these things are par for the course.

Another bone of contention for the realist crowd is the “comedy” found in earlier installments of the franchise. Now I’m not condoning double taking pigeons or Tarzan yells, but I think some light heartedness is very realistic. Life is not all comedy or drama, bad things happen during good times and funny things occur during tragedy. Some call out Bond’s quips made after dispatching a bad guy as “unfitting the character” however I contest this is very realistic it’s so realistic it has a name in the real world and it is called “gallows humor”. It’s a coping mechanism used by professionals who deal with tragedy on a daily basis such as cops, firemen, and paramedics. The new guard at EON and their minions would have us believe Bond deals with his demons by scowling into his martinis and mumbling nihilistic rhetoric to anyone who stands still long enough to hear it, but the professionals I deal with daily take a much lighter outlook on life, they have to or they’d jump off the Golden Gate Bridge.

While we’re on the topic of nihilism, the series was rebooted so as to show Bond at the beginning. Which means he started off as a cynical, nihilistic, mumbler and grew to become the suave sophisticated agent we all love? Now that’s none too realistic in my book!

So in short are any of the Bonds realistic? No, of course not. So why is anyone trying to say this one is?

once again-this is totally true. The "realistic" argument just doesn't work.. why? Because we don't know what real life spies are like actually. Even if we met one of them irl they certainly didn't tell us what are they really doing. Being a spy is not an easy job. You need to be mentally stable for that and making Craig this depressed "can not cope woth my job" mumbling guy DOES NOT make him realistic or any crap like that.

[dirtybenny]

Thank you for the kind words Veronica! It's nice to know my work is appreciated.

I hope you enjoy the next one just as much. That being said...

[dirtybenny]

Rant 26

“Bond Fans”

Since I am writing to a worldwide audience who may not be accustomed to the subtlety of written English, I thought I’d point out the meaning of my title. The quotes on “Bond Fans” is meant to convey a sort of sarcasm, in that they are called fans but are really not. Let me also state that because someone enjoys the Craig era it does not mean they are not true fans of James Bond. I know many dyed in the wool fans who do enjoy Craig’s tenure, however whether they realize it or not they enjoy them for what they are, psychological action thrillers NOT Bond films.

No I’m talking about those who call themselves fans but are actively working to help ruin the franchise.

There are several types of “Bond Fans” encompassing the gamut from benign to malignant. I’ll go from least to worst.

First we have what I call the “General Public”, they are just as the name implies, regular every day citizens, they are also the largest group. They come and go to the series, they haven’t seen all the films, just catch one here or there, they may not even know the title of the current offering. They can be overheard saying things like “I’m bored today let’s check out that new Bond flick.” Their damage is their apathy, and herd mentality. They don’t care that Bond has gone in a wholly other direction and probably haven’t even noticed. A good example is my best friend, back in 2012 we were out on the town for cocktails, when knowing what a Bond fanatic I am, he made what he thought was a harmless comment. “I kind of like this new guy (Craig), he seems really well built.” Poor guy didn’t know what Pandora’s Box he just pried open! 30 minutes later I finish my dissertation on the Craig era, and I’m happy to report we’re still friends! But you see what I’m on about, we were six years and two movies into Craig’s tenure not to mention SF was only months away and he’s referred to as the “new guy”. Now these folks are mostly harmless and only really hurt when they follow the herd, as they did with SF. Boosting the box office and giving EON the false sense that they are heading down the right path by delving deeper in to Bond’s past.

Second we have “Johnny Come Latelys”. They’re new comers to the series. They come in two classes, “Juniors” and “Graduates”.

“Juniors” are youngsters who grew up with Craig in the role, and don’t know any better. They cheer on Craig as he mopes and sobs while they sit in a corner, cutting themselves and listen to Morrissey. I get it I was once a teenager, I’d watch old film noir movies on the classic channels, the anti-hero hunched over in his trench coat and hat, a glass of scotch in one hand and cigarette in the other, these along with Dirty Harry, Chinatown, and L.A. Confidential, were the coolest thing to me. Thing was I didn’t think Bond was that, nor did I want him to be, he was the antithesis of those dark foreboding features, and provided relief when I didn’t want to be depressed come the end of the film.

“Graduates” are people who have “graduated” from the “General Public”. They’re older than the “Juniors” and grew up in the earlier days of Bond whether it be Connery, Brosnan, or any in between. They believe and regurgitate the tripe such as the Craig films are “closest to Fleming”, or how there so “gritty and realistic”. They never were fans of Bond, they only became one after EON stripped away all of the trappings of the “formula”, and Bond ceased to be “Bond” but rather “generic action hero #7”. You can spot them with lines such as, “Gadgets are tired”, or “The witty dialogue is worn out”. Well in my opinion if you don’t like gadgets, witty banter, fast cars, and faster women in exotic locales, and fine clothing, then you don’t like Bond, enough said, and there’s nothing wrong with that, the first step is admitting it. If you not a Bond fan then you’re not a Bond fan but don’t go around trying to change the recipe. I’m not a fan of Harry Potter but you won’t find me on the fan sites making statements like, “Magic wands are old fashioned” and “Wizard spells are tiresome”. That sort of behavior would be ridiculous, yet you see it every day on the Bond forums from individuals like these.

Finally we have the “Sycophants”, or as I also call them the “Emperor’s Subjects” as in “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. These are the worst offenders and forgive me for getting biblical here they are committing one of the seven deadly sins, “Sloth”. Not sloth in the traditional lazy sense but the original definition, “Evil exists when good men fail to act”. They turn a blind eye to the glaring problems in the current spate of films, even though they above all should know better, because they are actual fans. Some of these characters can be identified by the title of “Moderator” at the “Official” Bond fan sites. They are the reason many have come flocking to this forum, as they are responsible for the censorship that prevails on their sites. They want to stifle any dissention because they don’t want to lose their “official” status and “in” at EON. Perhaps they have the email to the “third assistant costume wrangler” whom they run to when they want to know what brand of underpants Craig is wearing in the Mexico chase scene, and don’t want that rug pulled out from under them because they allowed some upstart to shoot off their mouth.

This is not a comprehensive list and is in no means an attempt to pigeon hole anyone in to any of these groups; they are just types I have come across in my travels in both cyber and physical space.

[Blowfeld]

Cheers Dirty Benny!

I just watched Kingsman: The Secret Service, what a wonderful surprise. Somebody else liked the old Bond movies and for some unfathomable reason was allowed to make one!

To me much of the pabulum about Daniel is rooted in he erogenous assumption (foisted on us by EON) he is the closest to Ian Fleming's vision of James Bond and Casino Royale was the closest translation of his books to date. Absolute rubbish!

Ian would be appalled someone like Daniel Craig was cast, then he'd be aghast they made 007 a uncultured brute. The two points do not necessary connect, I could easily envision another actor making the same dreary movies.

I have argued the points surrounding the disparity of Casino Royale Novel VS Movie(s), it's just not worth rehashing. I can not see how reading the novel can absolve the movie of it's significant departures and lapses.

Beyond the basics of why Craig is not Bond I do not get how the invention on EON's part of 007 past, along with severe mommy issues are given such a pass.

[Veronica]

You mentioned general public and general public is the prime reason why last three movies did so well on the box office. We all know Bond.and everybody could say at least one thing about him. The thing is general audience probably doesn't know how many actors played James Bond-they almost surely don't know about Lazenby and Dalton could easily be forgotten as well. The probably wouldn't know how many Bond movies Moore made or what's the fifth movie of the franchise. And so on. That is why,because they don't know about Bond much and the world he lives in they could easily like these new movies that heavily copied Jason Bourne and Batman-successful franchises as well. General audience would probably never comment how "this doesn't feel like Bond" because simply they don't know him or think of him as much.
As for Bond fans I would probably divide them in three(if we count Craig fanboys) groups. The first group would be "the old timers"-fans who grew up with either Connery or Moore. Connery fans will go and say while Moore fans will swear by Moore's tongue in cheek humor. The second would be "The Brosnan fans"-younger audience who saw him first and became fans because of him.The thing I noticed is that they don't think highly of Craig for rather obvious reasons and also are put off by the fact Brosnan was fired and Craig hired. And then we have the infamous Craig fans-people who aparently don't have any other word than "badass" and "tough" and bla bla bla... they say how he is "Fleming's Bond" and that gets me wondering which books did they exactly read. They really BUT REALLY like to bash other actors because they just need to do it in order to make Craig look better. Sometimes they really get on my last nerve and I stopped visiting other forums because of them. If I ever read another "He is more serious and gritty" argument... even better they never but NEVER explain why they thing Craig movies are good-never.While others can write analysis and essays about it they can't say more than "gritty"...they should check the definition of that word. As well as "blunt".. because they have comments like "Craig is edgier and a blunt instrument just like Fleming(often with double m) described"... these two things contradict themselves.I guess by edgier they mean his looks-because as we all know Bond looked like a guy who beats old ladies for pensions,he was not tall or dark or sophisticated etc.
P.S. I am not disrespecting Lazenby or even more Dalton but since they made only three movies all together I don't know how much of an impact did they have. And considering the fact that they always finish last on polls...although any poll that has Craig as no.2 or should not be considered AT ALL.

[Veronica]

Cheers Dirty Benny!

I just watched Kingsman: The Secret Service, what a wonderful surprise. Somebody else liked the old Bond movies and for some unfathomable reason was allowed to make one!

To me much of the pabulum about Daniel is rooted in he erogenous assumption (foisted on us by EON) he is the closest to Ian Fleming's vision of James Bond and Casino Royale was the closest translation of his books to date. Absolute rubbish!

Ian would be appalled someone like Daniel Craig was cast, then he'd be aghast they made 007 a uncultured brute. The two points do not necessary connect, I could easily envision another actor making the same dreary movies.

I have argued the points surrounding the disparity of Casino Royale Novel VS Movie(s), it's just not worth rehashing. I can not see how reading the novel can absolve the movie of it's significant departures and lapses.

Beyond the basics of why Craig is not Bond I do not get how the invention on EON's part of 007 past, along with severe mommy issues are given such a pass.

I shamefully admit I haven't read Casino Royale but can you tell me how faithful movie is to the book exactly?

[dirtybenny]

Cheers Dirty Benny!

I just watched Kingsman: The Secret Service, what a wonderful surprise. Somebody else liked the old Bond movies and for some unfathomable reason was allowed to make one!

To me much of the pabulum about Daniel is rooted in he erogenous assumption (foisted on us by EON) he is the closest to Ian Fleming's vision of James Bond and Casino Royale was the closest translation of his books to date. Absolute rubbish!

Ian would be appalled someone like Daniel Craig was cast, then he'd be aghast they made 007 a uncultured brute. The two points do not necessary connect, I could easily envision another actor making the same dreary movies.

I have argued the points surrounding the disparity of Casino Royale Novel VS Movie(s), it's just not worth rehashing. I can not see how reading the novel can absolve the movie of it's significant departures and lapses.

Beyond the basics of why Craig is not Bond I do not get how the invention on EON's part of 007 past, along with severe mommy issues are given such a pass.

Yes Blowfeld, the question isn't if Fleming is spinning in his grave but at how many rotations a minute! As to why EON's whiny and brutish thug with mommy issues is considered "so close to Fleming" is because EON has repeated it enough to make it true, especially if you can convince others to repeat it for you...

Which goes to your point Veronica, Babzy Broccoli first made the comment of "Blunt Instrument" which was gleamed from a throw away line from one of the books (which one escapes me at the moment) by the individual at EON who's job it is to read them for her. As it's rather obvious she hasn't, I imagine because the "drivel" contained in those "misogynist" rags is beneath her.

[Veronica]

Babs keps saying with every entry how they go "back to Fleming"... as you already mentioned in one of your rants that seems to be her favourite expression. She was saying that ever since TWINE although to her credit in TWINE thare actually were some elements of that but she said the same thing for DAD-in the movie Frost actually describes Bond as an "blunt instrument" and there is some analysing of Bond from the side of the villain"You weakness are women,that cocky attitude..." but other than that nothing really comes to mind...and then came CR,and the "you didn't come from money" and "I don't give a d**n"...as for the next two entries Babs obviously spent more time watching Bourne and Batman and thinking what movies could they copy and what should she repeat from previous Bond entries...I'll give her one thing-the woman sure as hell knows how to make a fuss and actually is good at convincing people about her boyfriend how he is "closest to Fleming" and a "blunt instrument"...
blunt instument would mean a cold hearted killer and being blank when it comes to emotions while killing or generally-just because Craig looks like a bodyguard doesn't mean he is a "blunt instrument"...I think we all know he has major issues with coping with his job and mommy and daddy and what not...Babs decided to make things more depressing and then nail that as "Fleming's Bond"... nice try...

[commander0077again]

In OHMSS (novel) Bond doesn't much care for titles and such; 'snobbery is the hairy heel of Achilles' ... lots of fun with his visit with Griffin Or (btw, referencing Harry Potter again, the main professor is named Griffindore, which means 'golden griffin' which is traditionally a symbol for Christ ... at least that's what the English professor John Granger writes in hihs excellent book. Later, as Bond assumes the disguise of Sir Hillary (the real one is off chasing animals) he spends a few minutes pretending to be 'posh' and then throws down his paper and poshness, because the real Sir Hillary wasn't likely a snob. We get a hint of Bond's background in his obit in YOLT, raised by his aunt, attending Eton. I thik the Young Bond books do a nice job in fleshing out his background, and I get the sense his father was an executie in the Vickers firm, but didn't have a title.

[Blowfeld]

Babs keps saying with every entry how they go "back to Fleming"... as you already mentioned in one of your rants that seems to be her favourite expression. She was saying that ever since TWINE although to her credit in TWINE thare actually were some elements of that but she said the same thing for DAD-in the movie Frost actually describes Bond as an "blunt instrument" and there is some analysing of Bond from the side of the villain"You weakness are women,that cocky attitude..." but other than that nothing really comes to mind...and then came CR,and the "you didn't come from money" and "I don't give a d**n"...as for the next two entries Babs obviously spent more time watching Bourne and Batman and thinking what movies could they copy and what should she repeat from previous Bond entries...I'll give her one thing-the woman sure as hell knows how to make a fuss and actually is good at convincing people about her boyfriend how he is "closest to Fleming" and a "blunt instrument"...
blunt instument would mean a cold hearted killer and being blank when it comes to emotions while killing or generally-just because Craig looks like a bodyguard doesn't mean he is a "blunt instrument"...I think we all know he has major issues with coping with his job and mommy and daddy and what not...Babs decided to make things more depressing and then nail that as "Fleming's Bond"... nice try...

They get holy when they go off course. To insulate themselves from any valid criticism they claim they are only being faithful to Ian's work, intentions, wishes, etc. Therefore any 'small minded' objection are out right rejected. And there is no limit to number the people who want to be in their good graces perfectly willing to oblige their fantasy.

To me the reasons is how easy it is to confuse the public and critics alike, neither will take the time to read the original books, also the books could be said to have little to do with he popularity of the moveis. EON will say Bond has dark brooding thoughts, ennui, etc, yet they themselves are so vague on those concepts to get them wrong, including Daniel, when asked.

[Blowfeld]

Cheers Dirty Benny!

I just watched Kingsman: The Secret Service, what a wonderful surprise. Somebody else liked the old Bond movies and for some unfathomable reason was allowed to make one!

To me much of the pabulum about Daniel is rooted in he erogenous assumption (foisted on us by EON) he is the closest to Ian Fleming's vision of James Bond and Casino Royale was the closest translation of his books to date. Absolute rubbish!

Ian would be appalled someone like Daniel Craig was cast, then he'd be aghast they made 007 a uncultured brute. The two points do not necessary connect, I could easily envision another actor making the same dreary movies.

I have argued the points surrounding the disparity of Casino Royale Novel VS Movie(s), it's just not worth rehashing. I can not see how reading the novel can absolve the movie of it's significant departures and lapses.

Beyond the basics of why Craig is not Bond I do not get how the invention on EON's part of 007 past, along with severe mommy issues are given such a pass.

I shamefully admit I haven't read Casino Royale but can you tell me how faithful movie is to the book exactly?

I may repost some of it.
Off the top of my head.
For me the easiest explanation is James Bond was a fully fledged character, the relationship with M, Moneypenny, were all there page one. 007 was not a budding agent with two fresh kills under his belt, he was a well rounded person. The whole personality was a man who enjoyed life and was well aware of what he liked. The movie had 007 as a crude man just out of the Army (Navy as they corrected later, the original bio page on the web had him as former Army). Shaken or stirred? "Do I look like I give a d**n", slight rampage at foreign consulate, sure why not, it is what Fleming would want. He is such a bad ass he runs through walls and chases a man down in normally slow moving bull dozer.
Make a crude joke about scratching his gentiles, precisely Fleming, so Fleming it hurts!
Never explain why Le Chiffre's bosses kill him, no big deal.
M ranting about not being able to trust him and putting a tracking chip in him like a stray dog.
Bond smashing some rich entitled guys vehicle because he was mistake for a valet, who wouldn't mistake him for a valet after all he has such a fresh young face. This is another of those supposed "because he's bad ass moments", honestly to me this among other things are opposite extremes of Ian Fleming's James Bond.

[dirtybenny]

Two well put posts Blofeld! And Veronica my magnum opus will be the day I have had enough time to research and track down the instances when Babzy and Co. have claimed a certain moment of the current spate of "Hulk Bonds" was an attempt to "go back to Fleming" for example the infamous homoerotic interrogation from SF is somehow an homage to the novel TMWTGG, at least to according to Sam "Bond Fan #1" Mendes and John "Wish I Were a T.V. Writer" Logan.

In OHMSS (novel) Bond doesn't much care for titles and such; 'snobbery is the hairy heel of Achilles' ... lots of fun with his visit with Griffin Or (btw, referencing Harry Potter again, the main professor is named Griffindore, which means 'golden griffin' which is traditionally a symbol for Christ ... at least that's what the English professor John Granger writes in hihs excellent book. Later, as Bond assumes the disguise of Sir Hillary (the real one is off chasing animals) he spends a few minutes pretending to be 'posh' and then throws down his paper and poshness, because the real Sir Hillary wasn't likely a snob. We get a hint of Bond's background in his obit in YOLT, raised by his aunt, attending Eton. I thik the Young Bond books do a nice job in fleshing out his background, and I get the sense his father was an executie in the Vickers firm, but didn't have a title.

You're right Commander, Bond is not a snob or posh and he doesn't put much stock in the link between himself and his titled ancestor, but I will say he does have his moments of what I guess could be called "snobbishness" where he looks down his nose at others. He "abhors Windsor knots" makes snap judgments about people based on the clothing they wear and the toiletries they use, not to mention his brand loyalty and the obsessive compulsion he puts in to his scrambled eggs and the mix of his cocktail.

[Veronica]

and that homoerotic moment in Skyfall made my eyebrows shoot up. You already destroyed his credibility as an agent and as suave womanizer so why not call sexuality into question as well...what makes me sick are the headlines you can read on the internet-Bond movies are racist,homophobic...since when should we be politically correct about everything?!! I never heard any complaints about Bond who bedded women just like that and was 100% straight so why change that? Because you will get praise how "modern" you are...pftt..Bond is an old-school hero...wasn't there in DAD a line "You British still think you rule the world"...and that was always a part of the charm. Bond did what he did for his country because for him they were still no.1 country in the world. He lived for Britain. He had British elegance and suavness and taste. "While you were out the world changed 007" M observes at one point. "Not for me." Bond answers. I never heard anyone protesting about an old-school Bond who belonged to a swampy-old world. That was exactly part of the charm. So why change it?