|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » The really pathetic aspect of this supposed "boycott"...
| The really pathetic aspect of this supposed "boycott"... [message #227574] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 19:03 |
|
.... is that it's NOT in support of Brosnan -- if these people were
really interested in Brosnan's career they'd be driving people TO "The
Matador," which has basically disappeared and is putting Brosnan's
future as a non-Bond lead in jeopardy (hopefully TCA2 will turn that
around), and not AWAY from CR with another actor.
Instead, they're conducting this bizarre, school-girlish attack on
Craig's looks from movies where he's playing off-beat characters.
Everybody's writing that these 'fans' are sadly in need of getting a
real life, which is all good, but beyond that it probably exposes their
own insecurities. I wonder if they'd like to be judged on their looks
-- the fat pigs.
|
|
|
| Re: The really pathetic aspect of this supposed "boycott"... [message #227576 ] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 19:20 |
|
Brosnan is defined by Bond so it's a shame no-one wants to see him in
other roles.
LLC
|
|
|
| Re: The really pathetic aspect of this supposed "boycott"... [message #227607 ] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 22:00 |
|
I don't quite see it that way, JHause........Indeed the proposed
boycott is not intended to be in support of Brosnan except as it
relates to his role as Bond, not his career in general. They seem to
mostly be unhappy with Craig's looks while upset Brosnan was dropped
while still popular and able to play the 007. Unless the one report
I've seen is not accurate. And Craig's looks seem to me to be an
inevitable and appropriate topic of debate as they relate to his role
as Bond.
I do believe a boycott (yeah, that's gonna work!) based on Craig's
appearance is silly. I'd be far more worried about Michael Wilson
stating he considered the Bourne films as a model for a new direction
in the Bond series. And his explanation he and Barbara Broccoli needed
a new direction for "themselves." Words to that effect.
I will miss Brosnan but feel Craig's rugged looks likely dictate a
serious tone for 007 which I'll be glad to see. Brosnan could have done
one more IMO but his tenure will never be marred by suggestions he
stayed too long. And I'm pretty enthusiastic about what will apparently
be the biggest change in the Bond series since SC left. It's risky, a
little worrisome, but exciting.
In a way, I'm kind of ......not happy.......but somewhat satisfied to
read about this boycott. Not that I support it or that it will work. A
reminder to the producers that the future of one of the most popular
and beloved film heros in history rests in their hands might not be a
bad thing.
One other thought I'd like to express to the other posters here whose
opinions and Bond-knowledge I've respected for years. This is one of
the best places in the world to discuss "all things Bond," even doubts
and worries about Craig's looks and the new direction of the series.
While posters worried, or even angry, about the reboot of the series
might indeed be unwisely premature or base conclusions on rumors,
there's no need for them to wait to see the completed CR before
expressing those doubts. Yes, sometimes it can be overdone.
Some are just endlessly griping but I suspect we will see other posters
just looking for reassurance they will recognize Bond in CR. As the
"reboot" idea begins to make its way to the wider public I'm hearing
from quite a few acquaintances who are worried about the change.
I'm also kind of thinking the Bond producers are delighted with, in any
event certainly not worried about, this boycott. This is new-Bond
publicity plus! I mean how many Bond fans will NOT go see the new film
no matter how upset they are?
G(ary)SHATTERHAND, who probably is coming off way more preachy than he
intended
|
|
|
| Re: The really pathetic aspect of this supposed "boycott"... [message #227609 ] |
Do, 23 Februar 2006 22:23 |
|
GSHATTERHAND wrote:
> I don't quite see it that way, JHause........Indeed the proposed
> boycott is not intended to be in support of Brosnan except as it
> relates to his role as Bond, not his career in general. They seem to
> mostly be unhappy with Craig's looks while upset Brosnan was dropped
> while still popular and able to play the 007. Unless the one report
> I've seen is not accurate. And Craig's looks seem to me to be an
> inevitable and appropriate topic of debate as they relate to his role
> as Bond.
>
> I do believe a boycott (yeah, that's gonna work!) based on Craig's
> appearance is silly. I'd be far more worried about Michael Wilson
> stating he considered the Bourne films as a model for a new direction
> in the Bond series. And his explanation he and Barbara Broccoli needed
> a new direction for "themselves." Words to that effect.
>
> I will miss Brosnan but feel Craig's rugged looks likely dictate a
> serious tone for 007 which I'll be glad to see. Brosnan could have done
> one more IMO but his tenure will never be marred by suggestions he
> stayed too long. And I'm pretty enthusiastic about what will apparently
> be the biggest change in the Bond series since SC left. It's risky, a
> little worrisome, but exciting.
>
> In a way, I'm kind of ......not happy.......but somewhat satisfied to
> read about this boycott. Not that I support it or that it will work. A
> reminder to the producers that the future of one of the most popular
> and beloved film heros in history rests in their hands might not be a
> bad thing.
>
> One other thought I'd like to express to the other posters here whose
> opinions and Bond-knowledge I've respected for years. This is one of
> the best places in the world to discuss "all things Bond," even doubts
> and worries about Craig's looks and the new direction of the series.
> While posters worried, or even angry, about the reboot of the series
> might indeed be unwisely premature or base conclusions on rumors,
> there's no need for them to wait to see the completed CR before
> expressing those doubts. Yes, sometimes it can be overdone.
>
> Some are just endlessly griping but I suspect we will see other posters
> just looking for reassurance they will recognize Bond in CR. As the
> "reboot" idea begins to make its way to the wider public I'm hearing
> from quite a few acquaintances who are worried about the change.
>
> I'm also kind of thinking the Bond producers are delighted with, in any
> event certainly not worried about, this boycott. This is new-Bond
> publicity plus! I mean how many Bond fans will NOT go see the new film
> no matter how upset they are?
>
> G(ary)SHATTERHAND, who probably is coming off way more preachy than he
> intended
Nah, not too preachy. Good post. You know the series needs a re-boot,
though, when fans are upset because the guy playing the spy in the lead
isn't glamorous enough. HE'S A FRIGGIN' SPY! Craig's definitely better
looking than Hoagie friggin' Carmichael. They should thin his face down
and put a scar on his cheek like the book character. Scare away any
remaining pain-in-the-ass Brosnan fan club girls.
|
|
|
| Re: The really pathetic aspect of this supposed "boycott"... [message #227625 ] |
Fr, 24 Februar 2006 01:22 |
|
Good to see you back, Gary - I hope I'm not misremembering in thinking
we haven't heard from you in a little while.
> As the
> "reboot" idea begins to make its way to the wider public I'm hearing
> from quite a few acquaintances who are worried about the change.
One thing I'd say to this is that change is the very essence of what's
kept Bond going, and it's when the films or even books don't change
direction that things start going awry. Plenty of people on this list
and elsewhere like TSWLM a lot but can't abide MR, and similarly
Fleming's DAF, where he revisits some of the territory he first staked
out in LALD (gangsters, American setting, smuggling, etc) isn't
generally considered to be among his best work. I know I've said this
before, but part of the thrill of picking up a new Fleming novel when I
was a kid was to find Bond in new settings and situations, some
realistic, some fantastical, and I don't think it's a great coincidence
that certain films which are highly rated among Bond fans (for example
OHMSS, FYEO, and TLD) succeed partly *because* they're very different
kinds of Bond movies to the ones which preceded them. It's a difficult
balance, maintaining just enough of the formula to make it Bond, but
providing enough variety to keep things interesting, and yet so far I
don't think EON or Fleming have ever gone too far in their attempts to
'reboot' Bond. It's when they are determined to provide more of the
same that things get stale. (IMHO the EON films' slides into farce and
empty spectacle were *gradual*, and the results of attempts to emulate
and outdo previous successes. They weren't at all the result of a
decision to make major changes.)
....which leads me to one further point. A lot of discussion about CR,
not just here but all over the net, tends to posit everything as an
either / or choice, ie Brosnan vs Craig, grittiness vs glamour, EON =
genius vs EON = evil, etc. To me that's a gross oversimplification.
Most of us can enjoy Bond films of all kinds of shapes and sizes, and
actually enjoy being surprised by new wrinkles within the established
pattern. It's not a question of what's 'right' or 'wrong' in an
absolute sense, it's a question of 'how far is too far?', and there are
as many answers to that as there are Bond fans.
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: The really pathetic aspect of this supposed "boycott"... [message #227647 ] |
Fr, 24 Februar 2006 04:42 |
|
Hi Phil,
I've been posting now and then but its alway nice to be missed! : )
When I first read your post that "change is the very essence of what's
kept Bond going, and it's when the films or even books don't change
direction that things start going awry" I merely nodded in agreement.
Then, as I thought about it, I realized your point is more significant
than I'd first perceived. You are totally right. And when I think about
which films are most often considered superior, as you point out, it's
quite clear.
Citing TSWLM as an example, which you did, is perfect. To add a
bit.....TSWLM, although not all fans recall this, was kind of a reboot
of the series which some critics felt might not recover after TMWTGG.
(Bond being rescued by two teenage karate girls was cited as proof Bond
had hit bottom for some.) Then 007 came roaring back in TSWLM, a film
which looked better to me at the time than it does now, but was kind of
a rebirth of the series at that point.
And TSWLM also established the "big stunt" PTS and raised it to
prominence, anticipated by the audience in a way it had not been
previously. Bond not appearing in the PTS was unthinkable from TSWLM
on.......though he had not been in the PTS of the two previous films.
(Unless you count Scaramanga's Bond statue.)
Your other examples are spot on, too. OHMSS, FYEO, and TLD. I would
also add GF.
Although FRWL is a great film, GF went in a new direction, with
over-the-top action and villains in a fashion not seen in a major
motion picture previously, maybe never seen before at all, setting the
tone for the series from then on. (Some likely feel this wasn't a good
thing but GF sure made a world-wide impression.)
And another instance of the series taking a chance could be TWINE
following TND. TWINE presented a darker tone and more character-drive
story than TND. Many didn't like it. The actions sequences were flat.
But I've come to really appreciate TWINE as something different within
the series.
I've never been able to analyze films at the level of many here but in
these examples I see reinforcement for your assertion that many of the
most highly praised Bond films are very different than the ones "which
preceded them" and that "it's when they are determined to provide more
of the same that things get stale."
Having said all this.........and hopefully being clear I'm excited
about the chance the producers APPEAR to be taking with CR.......I do
think CR, based on current information, represents the sharpest change
in the series since Sean Connery left. And worrying just a bit about
how this might work out is somewhat justified for an old, literally
old, Bond fan like me. And I fully understand the slight distress some
of my acquaintances are beginning to express about CR.
I say this because, unless I've missed something, Bond is actually
supposed to be getting his double-o status and just starting out as an
agent. We're supposed to be seeing some of the events that made Bond
the man we've all come to know over the past twenty films. And YET it's
set in the present AND with the same M we've seen in the past four Bond
films. I keep thinking, and some have suggested, Bond's early years
will all be a kind of flashback. But that doesn't seem to be the case,
right? This film really is a reboot! For the first time, I don't see
anyway to imagine the man on the screen is the same one we've seen in
all the other missions. Unless we somehow move the events of all the
previous films into the future and mentally update them or something.
Many will point consistency and a solid time-line was never part of the
series but that doesn't help a lot.
If the only change in CR was the casting of Daniel Craig, and all we
were hearing was talk of a new, tough direction for Bond, I don't think
I'd be the least concerned. And I stress I am NOT deeply concerned. I'm
looking forward to CR but just kind of nervous.
G(ary)SHATTERHAND, who manages to say less using more words than most
folks
|
|
|
| Re: The really pathetic aspect of this supposed "boycott"... [message #227648 ] |
Fr, 24 Februar 2006 05:01 |
|
That was too long to read. Can you abbreviate it to:
C R A I G SUCKS AS BOND
.... for us thickies.:)
LOL
|
|
|
| Re: The really pathetic aspect of this supposed "boycott"... [message #227664 ] |
Fr, 24 Februar 2006 08:59 |
|
At 7:42pm -0800, 02/23/06, gshatterhand [at] aol.com wrote:
>And TSWLM also established the "big stunt" PTS and raised it to
>prominence, anticipated by the audience in a way it had not been
>previously.
It's still the best of all of them.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 10:16:00 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,02279 Sekunden |
