The Official "Admit you were wrong about Craig" thread

[Darthphere]

I got the ticket free fool -And atleast now I wont have to waste my money on the dvd. Come back and post some more when your hard on for craigs gone away

Observation: Isnt it funny how someone who comes and hates on any movie just by coincidnece, happened to not have paid for it, but got a free ticket or something. It just strikes me as odd.

 

[Goldeneye]

I guess working in a cinema part time and getting free tickets is pretty odd yeah.



But maybe you'll find out about that when you leave home.

 

[Darthphere]

LOL! WHo says im home right now. But thats also interesting, thats another thing they say. "I work at the movie theater"

 

[Goldeneye]

You're at home.....

Guess you've had alot of spare time to 'observe' the patterns of 'liers' on the hype ay? People do work in cinema you know - aim high enough and you can actually get there too, again, whe you leave home.

 

[Darthphere]

Are you the guy watching me through my window? Its funny, it seems by your posts you have something better to do in your busy cinema working life. But here we are.

 

[kit1982]

If that was the case he would have at least begun with some of the traits or at least had hints of the traits he has had for 40+ years. This was completly unrecognisable. Made me go away wanting to watch a proper Bond film.

The womanising, the love of a quick tipple now and then, the huge ego none of those are Bond traits? What do you consider to actually be a bond trait?

 

[DorkyFresh]

You're at home.....

Guess you've had alot of spare time to 'observe' the patterns of 'liers' on the hype ay? People do work in cinema you know - aim high enough and you can actually get there too, again, whe you leave home.

lol...i like how you constantly say "when you leave home" yet you're here just like the rest of us posting on nerdy forums.

oh...btw, working at a movie theater isn't exactly "aiming high".

that being said, you're totally biased if you can say that Casino Royale didn't have any of the familiar Bond elements. womanizing, crazy action, tuxedo, gambling, Bond's ego, his one liners, his martini, aston martin, menacing villians, crazy plot twists, extravagant locations...

...shall i go on?

 

[Goldeneye]

lol...i like how you constantly say "when you leave home" yet you're here just like the rest of us posting on nerdy forums.

oh...btw, working at a movie theater isn't exactly "aiming high".

1. I dont call James BOnd nerdy

2. Working part time in a cinema to support your university degree isnt aiming high?...right. Read my post on it again btw considering the word ...sarcasm

 

[Agentsands77]

If that was the case he would have at least begun with some of the traits or at least had hints of the traits he has had for 40+ years. This was completly unrecognisable. Made me go away wanting to watch a proper Bond film.

Umm, let see:

Bond in CASINO ROYALE

-He's a secret agent with the number 007.
-He has a taste for the finer things in life. He dresses well, has a specific recipe for his martini, loves Bollinger and caviar, knows about cars (he recognizes an 1964 Aston Martin DB5 by sight).
-He's a womanizer.
-He knows how to gamble, and gamble well.
-He has a sense of charm and wit ("I'm the money." "Every penny of it.")
-He's emotionally detached.
-He's fairly arrogant.
-He's very dedicated to his job.

What else were you looking for?

 

[DorkyFresh]

1. I dont call James BOnd nerdy

2. Working part time in a cinema to support your university degree isnt aiming high?...right. Read my post on it again btw considering the word ...sarcasm

1. Superherohype is, by nature, a nerdy place...just because you're posting under the James Bond section doesn't automatically rid it of us...

2. you never said anything about your "university degree". all you said was that if you aim high enough you can work at a theater. you never said anything about aiming high enough to fund your education. i can see you have a looooong way to go until you earn whatever degree you made up to fit your argument. i suppose your next move will be to say that you're getting your degree in film making.

3. you never said anything about the examples i gave you on how Casino Royale DOES incorporate elements of the classic Bond. i take it either you realize that it actually does and don't want to man up and admit that it does or you just conveniently ignored it.

 

[Goldeneye]

1. I came here for Bond I stay away from the geeky bits

2. If you re read my post I said I was working in a cinema PART-TIME. Meaning its not a career move. Hard to understand? The natural next step assumption would be Im working there aswell as doing something else...which gets to the idea of an education.

3. I gave reasons why I feel the movie was ****......you can go read them further back. Im not repeating myself for every bum that comes in here trying to make a point .....

 

[kit1982]

1. I came here for Bond I stay away from the geeky bits

2. If you re read my post I said I was working in a cinema PART-TIME. Meaning its not a career move. Hard to understand? The natural next step assumption would be Im working there aswell as doing something else...which gets to the idea of an education.

3. I gave reasons why I feel the movie was ****......you can go read them further back. Im not repeating myself for every bum that comes in here trying to make a point .....Just because it had a car in it and bond wears a suit doesnt make it any better....

Eh? You gave vague reasons such as, "he doesn't carry the Bond traits" yet when asked to expand on that by just simply giving an example of a Bond trait that was absent, you keep stum.

 

[DorkyFresh]

3. I gave reasons why I feel the movie was ****......you can go read them further back. Im not repeating myself for every bum that comes in here trying to make a point .....Just because it had a car in it and bond wears a suit doesnt make it any better....

first off, as kit1982 posted, you gave vague reasons.

second, if you're not willing to argue your point and all you can do is tell someone to look through your past posts then you don't have the right to keep repeating that Casino Royale doesn't have elements of Bond.

as you said...you're not repeating yourself for every bum that comes in here trying to make a point. well...then don't repeat yourself.....if you've already made your point (that Casino Royale doesn't have Bond elements) then there's no reason for you to repeat yourself right?

IF that's the case...the next time you spout that Casino Royale doesn't have elements of Bond, that automatically makes you a hypocrite, seeing as you said that you're not going to repeat yourself.






if you're not willing to repeat your explanation, or at least give a link, as to why your opinion is what it is, then you don't deserve to be taken seriously if you repeat your opinion.

 

[DACrowe]

I never dismissed genreal worthwile opinions. YOu can prefer Craig. But this fad among fanboys to dis and say "that sucked" when something new comes out annoys me. When X2 came out, X1 automatically sucked and X2 was the best movie ever. When SM2 came out SM1 was now crap and SM2 was the best movie ever. When BB came out Keaton was a terrible Batman and the original that most fans liked was now trash.

With the new Bond movie I am seeing too many people who like it (myself included) say "Craig is Bond period. Forget Connery." or "Craig's Bond would kick Brosnan's metrosexual ass." My favorite, "This makes me look at Brosnan as a sissy," when literally just ONE YEAR AGO on these same boards (or Misc. Films at the time) most were appauled at Craig and said Brosnan was the best since Connery and shouldn't have been fired.

I don't mind Brosnan is gone. Hell, I never said anything bad about Craig. I thought he was AMAZING in Casino Royale. And it is easily the best Bond film in over 10 years. I simply don't like the bandwagoning of when something new comes out all that is old must suck. It was not an attack on Craig or a defense of Brosnan so much as a statement of irritation of bandwagoning contempt for all that is not recent.

I'm not saying all people or most do this. But there are posts that I read and that is what I was commenting at. Not those who gave good hypothesis. I'd even be willing to be in 10 years when we get a new Bond the fans will hate it at first and when the actor comes out will be dissing Craig. It's how fanboyism works.

With that said Craig in Infamous was okay, but his counterpart in Capote was better, as was the overall movie that didn't rely on blatent sex or campy gay jokes to sell the movie. But he was decent. His best work I've seen is probably the very small but powerful (in a dispicable way) performance in Road to Perdition. Layer Cake was all style and no substance and Munich was great but he was one of the lesser of engaging assassins in that movie though.

With that said I thought Craig was great as Bond and I admitted my inital reaction was dead wrong. My previous post was just a reaction of the bandwagoning going on right now.

 

[thedarks0ldier]

Never doubted Craig, glad everyone else that was wrong have the integrity to admit it... I am so proud of you guyst:

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I had my doubts when he was cast. I cringed when I heard the BULL**** LIES that he couldn't drive stick, didn't like guns and lost 3 teeths in a scene fight (he actually didn't lose a single tooth.....****in aye, huh?) and despite all the bull**** the ****ing bull****....."too blonde, too blue eyed, too short, not tough enough".....bull****. All of it was bull****. This guy had to take a lot of crap, and he still kicked ass and rocked.

So, I gave him a chance.....waited until the movie to decide. And, I'm happy I did. Craig deserved the role, and I think he has earned the 007 mantle. He managed to impress even though everyone and they're mother were out to get him b/c we were all hung up on Brosnan.

He was fantastic. And, to be honest....coming from a Brosnan fan....I think he was better than Brosnan.

So, yeah....I had my doubts. But, I never tossed him under the bus....and I'm happy I didn't b/c now I don't have to swallow my words or pride over it. I had my doubts, but Craig managed to win me over.

 

[Drago]

So the point was to make the charecter unrecognisable from the last 40 years worth of representation. For me to not think of him as Bond. Pretty **** idea. HIs Bond could have been random secret agent in ...generic spy film.

The point was to make the character recognizable to the last 50 years of books, not movies- some people like the more serious character, some are stuck on the past cheesier flicks and Bonds. Not wrong either way.

Personally I like the new Bond, but to each their own. For the sake of those who enjoyed the film, hopefully we get more of the darker Bond- for those who didn't enjoy it, I'm sorry to say but it's either the darker Bond for now, or no Bond at all..

 

[Warhammer]

I won't admit that I was wrong about Craig, because....

well, I actually kept my mouth shut and gave Craig a chance.
He did very well in CR.

 

[Cinemaman]

Well, I gave him chance, and I was right.

Yeah, I didn't like the movie so much (especially because of it's script), Craig is great Bond.

As I remember, I hated actors for Bond role like Brosnan (except Goldeneye), Moore and Dalton. And I still ahte them.

But my favorites are Connery and Craig. They are the best.

 

[celldog]

Definitely Connery and Craig........

 

[celldog]

No love for Georgy boy???? t:

 

[kit1982]

I thought Lazenby did a good job, he gets far too much stick for my liking as does OHMSS as a whole.

 

[Goldeneye]

'If you have ever been a true James Bond movie fan you would know that Craig brings nothing to the Part of James Bond. I dont have much intrest in another Bond movie, with this man being cast as James Bond. Or with the same aweful dialogue and script, boring elements. James Bond is not a mere action hero. JB..is totally a fantasy of what ladies dream of and what men would like to be. He is suave, classic, debonaire. Craig exhibits nont of that sophisticated charm that makes the fans of James Bond keep coming back. He started out from a character in a book and he grew into an image. The features of the character that are forever James Bond, are true today as they were when he first hit the movie screen. There are some things you cannot put "an up to date spin on it", because some things are classic, and are never out of style. Back in the day James Bond was before his time, so here he is...Well why take from the Character all that made him. Can anyone in the same breath even compare Craig to Connery, Brosnan or Moore . NO. There were other very impressive contenders to play the part, they should have gone with someone else'

 

[kit1982]

You do realise he's supposed to be not the classic incarnation of Bond till right at the end when the theme starts playing, right? I thought he did show some of the familiar traits of the classic Bond, but also fitted Flemmings image as written in the book. However I do agree he can't be mentioned with the Connery's and Moore's (not a big Brosnan fan tbh) due to the fact we haven't really seen him play that version of Bond and heck it's only been one film. Oh enough of this, "if you were ever a true Bond fan" nonsense.

 

[Goldeneye]

'I'd like to see the classic elements return for the next one. I'm talking about Q, Moneypenny, the opening bullet shot, more beautiful Bond women, more use of his theme song during action sequences and what not, and some real awesome vehical chases, Proper Bond deminer/ suave, classic, debonaire. These things are what made the Bond movies different from any other spy movie.Dont want another boring....'edgy' film....that doesnt properly represent the main charecter, as in CR, The 'prequel / Origins trend' was cool when Batman Begins did it, propely'