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
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » More ramblings on CR
More ramblings on CR [message #283816] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 13:07
suave harv  
I've just been surfing the Casino Royale website, and very swish it is too,
but once again I'm dismayed by a couple of points, and I suspect it's the
same niggle many of us have.
Firstly, the 'Bond's first mission' thing. I understand the 'Batman Begins'
idea behind it all, but by using Dench as M, it means all the pre-Brosnan
movies are now part of some alternate reality.
In fact, even Goldeneye doesn't work anymore, as Dench was clearly the new M
in that (didn't she mention her "illustrious predecessor?".
Even though the Bond chronology beggars belief, there's always been a notion
that it's the same bond throughout the movies (remember Leighter's "he was
married once, a long time ago" in LTK? We loved all that, although a thirty
something 1989 Dalton would have been in his teens in 1969. . but the films
still played the game as it were. It was the same character).
But the few hundred 'diehards' who will get niggled by this glitch is
nothing compared to the millions that will go and see the movie and not give
a damn. So although I'm not entirely happy with the 'Bond Begins' aspect, I
realise it's all anal fanboy stuff anyway, so I'll try not to let it spoil
my enjoyment.

But the major gripe - and I know this has been covered many times before -
if there's one thing a screen James Bond should be, he should be an iconic,
dashing suave spy. A guy that most 'red blooded males' (to quote Fleming)
would want to be - that's a given. It's the ultimate in escapism cinema.
That's how it works - that what it owes us.

Lest we forget -
http://tinyurl.com/zrgoc

Everytime I look at Craig he just doesn't look right. And everyone, and yes
I mean everyone I've spoken to agrees. My girlfriend, people at work, my
mates. Everyone seems disappointed in the apparent miss-casting of Bond.

And I know it's very pc around these parts to say 'it doesn't matter what he
looks like, is it going to be a good movie? can he act? is it a good
script?' - and yes, I understand, in an ideal world it shouldn't matter. But
this is James Bond, the ultimate in celluloid fantasy action figures. He
should be handsome at least, right?

But there's something else. 10,000 women were polled to find the sexiest
men. Craig gets a respectable number 8.

1. Brad Pitt
2. Jake Gyllenhaal
3. Orlando Bloom
4. Johnny Depp
5. Clive Owen
6. Jose Mourinho
7. Shayne Ward
8. Daniel Craig
9. Simon Jones
10. Olivier Martinez


So how can he be ugly? The girlies like him. . .

Now here's where I get confused. When I look at Craig I think of a foundry
worker with a Robbie Williams cut. Perhaps it's my perceptions of what a
good looking man should look like that's at fault here. I am, after all, a
heterosexual male in my late 30's (like most here I bet.-)), so it's not for
me to say what is 'sexy' as such. .
So all these women find Craig and his 'rugged' footballer looks very sexy
indeed. Perhaps the classic film-star good looks of the golden era of
Hollywood are now considered not so handsome after all. Perhaps, with
football as the new rock & roll, and the trend towards 'reality television',
'normal' is the new 'sexy', and I'm just an old fashioned Bond fan who still
thinks Roger Moore on his water-cycle racing to Stromberg's hide-away, with
his manly chin and quiffed hair is the coolest thing ever - like I did when
I was eleven.

It's hard to overcome one's preconceived ideas isn't it?

--
Re: More ramblings on CR [message #283820 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 15:04
phil.gerrard1  
suave harv wrote:

> Firstly, the 'Bond's first mission' thing. I understand the 'Batman Begins'
> idea behind it all, but by using Dench as M, it means all the pre-Brosnan
> movies are now part of some alternate reality.

I can see your point, but from a continuity point of view I don't think
it's *drastically* worse than the 'same Q, M, and Moneypenny /
different Bond' scenario we've seen happen so many times before.
(Everything up to and including GE has to be part of some alternate
reality in any case, since it's no longer credible that a
late-thirty-something Bond could have seen service during the Cold War:
that in itself plays havoc with the idea that we're watching the same
guy we've seen in all those other movies.)

If the Bond films were bigger on character development than they are,
if they hadn't contradicted themselves in the past, and if there
weren't literally hundreds of other aspects of Bond's stated background
which simply can't be reconciled with each other any more, then I might
lose some sleep over it. As it is, I think I'll take the wise advice
offered by Basil Exposition, not worry about these things and just
enjoy myself.

(If it makes you feel any better, there's no reason you could always
pretend that Dench is the same actor playing a different role: after
all, M is only a codename :-))

> Everytime I look at Craig he just doesn't look right. And everyone, and yes
> I mean everyone I've spoken to agrees. My girlfriend, people at work, my
> mates. Everyone seems disappointed in the apparent miss-casting of Bond.

Well, again, it's weird. I don't know whether I'm talking to the wrong
people or what, but the response from people I know has been
overwhelmingly positive: in fact, I can't think of anybody I've met
who's been negative about the choice. It's probably worth noting,
however, that a few people, including my girlfriend, have offered
variations on the formula 'he's not *classically* good-looking, but I
think he'll be bloody good'.

> But there's something else. 10,000 women were polled to find the sexiest
> men. Craig gets a respectable number 8.
>
> So how can he be ugly? The girlies like him. . .

See, this confuses and surprises me also. While I can well understand
why some women would find Craig hugely attractive, I wouldn't
necessarily have thought he would be a such a popular choice. Could
this be the power of suggestion? The aura the role of Bond confers?
Barbara Broccoli rigging the ballot?

What none of us have any idea about is how the 'silent majority' are
going to react when CR comes out. I mean, not many people feel so
strongly about Bond that they feel impelled to share their opinions
with the rest of the world via the internet, so nothing we're reading,
pro or con, can be taken seriously as a barometer of how people will
react when the movie comes out. (Statistically, this is what's called
a 'self-selecting sample', but I promised I wouldn't get onto that
hobbyhorse again.) In fact, to a lot of outsiders, the whole flap
about Craig is hugely amusing, a classic example of obsessive fans
getting worked up about something supremenly trivial. 'Worse than
Trekkies' is a comparison which has appeared in more than one
newspaper.

> So all these women find Craig and his 'rugged' footballer looks very sexy
> indeed. Perhaps the classic film-star good looks of the golden era of
> Hollywood are now considered not so handsome after all.

I was thinking about this the other day, and it struck me that for
every Cary Grant there was a Humphrey Bogart, for every Rock Hudson a
Spencer Tracy, etc, etc. Leading men used to come in all shapes and
sizes, and during that golden era, rugged masculinity had just as much
of an appeal to audiences as classic film-star good looks. In fact,
it's probably harder to imagine somebody who looked like James Cagney
or Robert Mitchum becoming a star during the '80s and early '90s than
it was back in their day.

> It's hard to overcome one's preconceived ideas isn't it?

When Craig's name was first mentioned as being connected with the role,
a few months before the announcement was made, I was surprised, and it
took me a day or two before I started to think that actually he might
be a good choice. IMHO Craig's an intriguing choice whose casting
opens up a lot of new possibilities for the series, whereas a more
obvious and predictable choice of actor, for example Hugh Jackman,
would have made me suspect it was just going to be business as usual.
I don't know, I just feel that when the Bond films get too comfortable
they lose something, and there's an edginess about Craig and the whole
CR project which, while it might upset people who want everything to be
as they've always known and loved it, I think might restore some
much-needed bite to the franchise.

Best

Phil
Re: More ramblings on CR [message #283822 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 19:19
Notifier Deamon  
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
Re: More ramblings on CR [message #283823 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 19:25
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> I was thinking about this the other day, and it struck me that for
> every Cary Grant there was a Humphrey Bogart, for every Rock Hudson a
> Spencer Tracy, etc, etc. Leading men used to come in all shapes and
> sizes, and during that golden era, rugged masculinity had just as much
> of an appeal to audiences as classic film-star good looks. In fact,
> it's probably harder to imagine somebody who looked like James Cagney
> or Robert Mitchum becoming a star during the '80s and early '90s than
> it was back in their day.

Modern day examples would include Nick Nolte and, perhaps more tellingly,
Harrison Ford. Ford is by no means a conventionally handsome man yet
he played an iconic role men identified with, and women wanted to
be with. Craig would appear to be from the same mould.

The teaser trailer seems to have sparked genuine interest amongst the
casual Bond watchers I know.
--
-- Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of finding
Heather Mills' number in a billionaire's address book. $8,000 allegedly..."
Re: More ramblings on CR [message #283824 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 19:27
Mac  
Dylan Winslow wrote:

> On 2006-06-14 07:07:51 -0400, "suave harv"
> <shutyertrap [at] foodnotpints.com> said:
>> But there's something else. 10,000 women were polled to find the
>> sexiest men. Craig gets a respectable number 8.
>>
>> 1. Brad Pitt
>> 2. Jake Gyllenhaal
>> 3. Orlando Bloom
>> 4. Johnny Depp
>> 5. Clive Owen
>> 6. Jose Mourinho
>> 7. Shayne Ward
>> 8. Daniel Craig
>> 9. Simon Jones
>
> The guy who played Arthur Dent in the original Hitchhiker's Guide to
> the Galaxy? Interesting.

LOL The Rugby player.
--
-- Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of valet parking at the Betty Ford clinic."
Re: More ramblings on CR [message #283825 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 19:33
Mac  
Mac wrote:

>>> 9. Simon Jones
>>
>> The guy who played Arthur Dent in the original Hitchhiker's Guide to
>> the Galaxy? Interesting.
>
> LOL The Rugby player.

Cricketer! Doh!
--
-- Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of a
legally-required story retraction in a British tabloid."
Re: More ramblings on CR [message #283827 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 20:06
phil.gerrard1  
Mac wrote:

> Modern day examples would include Nick Nolte and, perhaps more tellingly,
> Harrison Ford. Ford is by no means a conventionally handsome man yet
> he played an iconic role men identified with, and women wanted to
> be with.

For me, there's always been something about Ford's persona which felt
as if it belonged spiritually to an earlier era. It's hard to define
what it is, but there's something 'old-school' about him. (Of course,
it could simply be the Indiana Jones connection, but I feel there's
something more to it than that.) In some ways Nolte's got a Mitchum
thing going, but he's also very much a post-Method guy, so there's
something a little more modern about him.

Of course, both actors started to emerge as leading men in the '70s, a
decade when even Joe Don Baker could headline a movie. I don't know,
did such a diversity of 'interesting'-looking new male stars emerge in
the '80s and '90s? I'm struggling to think of many who weren't either
male-model material or over-muscular ubermenschen. Bruce Willis and
Nicolas Cage, perhaps?

(This also leads to the vexed question of what constitutes a star as
opposed to an actor who plays leading roles...)

Best

Phil
Re: More ramblings on CR [message #283828 ] Mi, 14 Juni 2006 20:30
Mac  
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> Of course, both actors started to emerge as leading men in the '70s, a
> decade when even Joe Don Baker could headline a movie. I don't know,
> did such a diversity of 'interesting'-looking new male stars emerge in
> the '80s and '90s? I'm struggling to think of many who weren't either
> male-model material or over-muscular ubermenschen. Bruce Willis and
> Nicolas Cage, perhaps?

As you say, it's debating marquee value stars as opposed to leads.
Recently, Sam Jackson and Joe Peschi have top-lined films and, after
many years of trying -- including the 70s it should be noted, Tommy
Lee Jones finally became a legitimate star.

Then you have guys like Kurt Russell and Dennis Quaid. Both have
managed to consistently land plum leading roles with very few
genuine box-office hits between them!

Going back to your point about stars who appear to be from a different
era, the most obvious example would be Kevin Costner. Just about the
only star who could arrest a downward career trajectory with a western!
--
-- Mac

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability
of Ronaldo in a pie shop."
Re: More ramblings on CR [message #283853 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 20:50
Mike Feeney  
> --
> -- Mac
>
> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of a
> legally-required story retraction in a British tabloid."

LOL!

Mike
"And certainly you are familiar with this species of fish, aren't you
Mr. Sterling?"
"Of course. That's the Spinycus HeatherMills-raptor. A female
predator. It sinks its teeth into passing-by males of the species,
sucking them dry of nearly all their resources. Beautiful, but deadly."
Re: More ramblings on CR [message #283862 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 22:52
Mac  
Mike Feeney wrote:
>> --
>> -- Mac
>>
>> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of a
>> legally-required story retraction in a British tabloid."
>
> LOL!
>
> Mike
> "And certainly you are familiar with this species of fish, aren't you
> Mr. Sterling?"
> "Of course. That's the Spinycus HeatherMills-raptor. A female
> predator. It sinks its teeth into passing-by males of the species,
> sucking them dry of nearly all their resources. Beautiful, but
> deadly."

LOL
--
-- Mac

'World domination'. Same old dream. Our asylums are full of
people who think they're Napoleon...or God...or Heather Mills."
Re: More ramblings on CR [message #283865 ] Do, 15 Juni 2006 23:40
Tom Zielinski  
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:4fdvkfF1ib0jkU1 [at] individual.net...
> Mike Feeney wrote:
>>> --
>>> -- Mac
>>>
>>> "James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of a
>>> legally-required story retraction in a British tabloid."
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> Mike
>> "And certainly you are familiar with this species of fish, aren't you
>> Mr. Sterling?"
>> "Of course. That's the Spinycus HeatherMills-raptor. A female
>> predator. It sinks its teeth into passing-by males of the species,
>> sucking them dry of nearly all their resources. Beautiful, but
>> deadly."
>
> LOL
> --
> -- Mac
>
> 'World domination'. Same old dream. Our asylums are full of
> people who think they're Napoleon...or God...or Heather Mills."



What's with the Mills bashing? I don't know much of the details, have I
missed something? Was she simply a gold-digger?



"That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman"
"Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?"
"No, but I know that if true, Heather Mills doesn't have a leg to stand
on..."
Re: More ramblings on CR [message #283873 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 01:28
phil.gerrard1  
Tom wrote:

> What's with the Mills bashing? I don't know much of the details, have I
> missed something? Was she simply a gold-digger?

Dunno if she was broke enough that she'd need to be, or couldn't have
found a less high-profile guy to take to the cleaners if that was what
she was doing - if she was just looking to make some cash out of a guy,
I'm sure there would have been millionaires she could pick on with whom
the split wouldn't have ended as messily and publically. Once the
tabloids get their claws in it's hard to tell anymore.

I have to share this, however. I played a pop quiz machine in the pub
tonight, and one of the questions was, quite genuinely, as follows:

"Who sang 'she's got legs' in 1985?
A) Michael Jackson
B) Z Z Top
C) Paul McCartney"

Best

Phil
Re: More ramblings on CR [message #283889 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 08:40
Rhino  
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:40:38 -0500, "Tom Zielinski"
<rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote:


>> 'World domination'. Same old dream. Our asylums are full of
>> people who think they're Napoleon...or God...or Heather Mills."
>
>
>
>What's with the Mills bashing? I don't know much of the details, have I
>missed something? Was she simply a gold-digger?
>
>
>
>"That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman"
>"Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?"
>"No, but I know that if true, Heather Mills doesn't have a leg to stand
>on..."
>

In an interview about his failed marriage, Paul McCartney was asked if
he would ever go down on one knee again.

He said "I'd prefer it if you called her Heather"...




I really do apologise for that...
Re: More ramblings on CR [message #283894 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 09:44
Levi Ramsey  
Rhino wrote:

> In an interview about his failed marriage, Paul McCartney was asked if
> he would ever go down on one knee again.
>
> He said "I'd prefer it if you called her Heather"...
>
> I really do apologise for that...

No need to apologize, o horned one...
Re: More ramblings on CR [message #283903 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 17:16
Mark  
Thank you for making me spit coffee all over my keyboard.

Rhino wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 16:40:38 -0500, "Tom Zielinski"
> <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> 'World domination'. Same old dream. Our asylums are full of
> >> people who think they're Napoleon...or God...or Heather Mills."
> >
> >
> >
> >What's with the Mills bashing? I don't know much of the details, have I
> >missed something? Was she simply a gold-digger?
> >
> >
> >
> >"That gun, it looks more fitting for a woman"
> >"Do you know much about guns, Mr. Bond?"
> >"No, but I know that if true, Heather Mills doesn't have a leg to stand
> >on..."
> >
>
> In an interview about his failed marriage, Paul McCartney was asked if
> he would ever go down on one knee again.
>
> He said "I'd prefer it if you called her Heather"...
>
>
>
>
> I really do apologise for that...
Vorheriges Thema:After Barb & Mike, Who?
Nächstes Thema:Ultimate Edition Region 1?
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 09:49:55 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,02366 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered