Could Pierce Brosnan feasibly come back to do a Bond after Craig leaves?

1910111214

Comments

  • Posts: 6,396
    Ludovico wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Yes, Craig looks older now than when he did CR, duh! But Brosnan now is pushing 60. And he looks like a man of his age!

    No he is 60! There really is no pushing about it!

    So can he do one more Bond after Craig's tenure? I am somewhat skeptical about this.

    No you should be more than skeptical? He really cannot return to Bond. It's an absolutely appalling notion to even suggest it. Hell, why not bring back Connery on that basis?!

    You musht be joking laddie! I'm retired, you know ;) I wouldn't pay to see any of the older Bonds come back after the results of NSNA.

    It was bad enough when he was paid to "read the phone book" in 2005 when he provided his vocal talents for the FRWL game.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2013 Posts: 12,480
    Well, I'll just say that I'm a Brosnan as Bond fan, and of course I do NOT want him back as Bond now. That's just a stupid idea. For any retired Bond, not just Brosnan. Surprised this thread has so many posts.

    And I'll add for Brosnan: He is 60, he looks great for his age, though, and has gone on to have some wonderful roles after his tenure as Bond. I look forward very much to his upcoming films. I loved Brosnan as Bond, I love the way he looks and acts at 60, and I feel sure I will probably love him at 70, too. :-bd
  • Posts: 15,124
    Ludovico wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Yes, Craig looks older now than when he did CR, duh! But Brosnan now is pushing 60. And he looks like a man of his age!

    No he is 60! There really is no pushing about it!

    So can he do one more Bond after Craig's tenure? I am somewhat skeptical about this.

    No you should be more than skeptical? He really cannot return to Bond. It's an absolutely appalling notion to even suggest it. Hell, why not bring back Connery on that basis?!

    I was using a euphemism.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Sorry,if somebody mentioned this before on the last 12 Pages (I simply don't have the will to go through them) but this might be the most superflouos question of them all on this Forum. After all,this would only make Sense,if they planned to make the last Bond Movie ever and show him old,grey and exhausted. But given the fact,that Craig already looks older than Brosnan (and has given us all of the before mentioned,exept the goodbye for good) there is hardly a need to change the Impersonator here.

    It saddens me, @Matt_Helm, that you struggle so much with the popularity of Daniel Craig that you have to produce such a provocative post.

    Sorry you see it this Way. I was merely making a joke regarding my opinion on the possibilities of a Brosnan Comeback (and an acceptable good one I think ). Also, not even SFs supporters deny,that Craig looks really quite old with this beard/stubble/whatever. Not that I'm aware of,however.

    With a word like "impersonator" and all the mentioning of "old", "exhausted" and whatnot, combined with your posting history, it's not a joke at all, @Matt_Helm.
    I remember a very shortlived internet cult called craigisntbond or whatever. It's become the laughing stock of this forum. So you might have unintentionally raised a joke by reminding us of those poor souls.

    Truth is, this thread is about Brosnan returning yet you spent half your post being very condescending towards Craig with an obvious subtext of being also condescending towards Craig's fans. The other half of your post indicates that you think the thread's question so stupid you don't even care to read the previous pages in order to enter any discussion here. All this begs the question why you even bother to post here if not to demonstrate once again that you loath Craig with passion and that you fail to cope with other people's liking of Craig.

    Now, let me tell you how grown-ups do this. Grown-ups state their issues with a film, an actor, a creative choice, ... once or twice and then let it pass for a while. For example, if I wanted to, I could copy myself every day stating the problems I have with AVTAK. I may recap them once every 6 months or so, and even then I use neutral words and avoid sounding like I think that fans of the film are nitwits. I don't use silly hyperboles or spiteful remarks because I'm stating my opinion but with respect to those who have a different one. And when a thread is about an AVTAK appreciation, I either contribute by summing up what things I do appreciate about the film, or I don't post anything in that thread at all.

    You, by contrast, continuously enter discussions about SF or Craig, knowing very well that your disdain for all things Craig is by now infamous on this forum. But that doesn't stop you from adding more fuel to the fire, which tells me something about you. It tells me that in the end you don't care about having a grown-up debate, you only care about having a fight. And the fact that your scornful tone and negative input make you progressively less popular amongst the members of this forum, seems to only encourage you.

    Take my advice and avoid these threads until you have learned to post in a more reasonable, less attention seeking fashion. Thank you.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    While even I wouldn't be interested in the idea of Brosnan returning at this stage to play Bond (not out of a lack of interest in the man, I just don't want another NSNA type scenario), I am curious to see how he is in 'November Man.' He's already looking up to the part and looks incredibly deadly in those set pictures I've seen.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Sorry,if somebody mentioned this before on the last 12 Pages (I simply don't have the will to go through them) but this might be the most superflouos question of them all on this Forum. After all,this would only make Sense,if they planned to make the last Bond Movie ever and show him old,grey and exhausted. But given the fact,that Craig already looks older than Brosnan (and has given us all of the before mentioned,exept the goodbye for good) there is hardly a need to change the Impersonator here.

    It saddens me, @Matt_Helm, that you struggle so much with the popularity of Daniel Craig that you have to produce such a provocative post.

    Sorry you see it this Way. I was merely making a joke regarding my opinion on the possibilities of a Brosnan Comeback (and an acceptable good one I think ). Also, not even SFs supporters deny,that Craig looks really quite old with this beard/stubble/whatever. Not that I'm aware of,however.

    With a word like "impersonator" and all the mentioning of "old", "exhausted" and whatnot, combined with your posting history, it's not a joke at all, @Matt_Helm.
    I remember a very shortlived internet cult called craigisntbond or whatever. It's become the laughing stock of this forum. So you might have unintentionally raised a joke by reminding us of those poor souls.

    Truth is, this thread is about Brosnan returning yet you spent half your post being very condescending towards Craig with an obvious subtext of being also condescending towards Craig's fans. The other half of your post indicates that you think the thread's question so stupid you don't even care to read the previous pages in order to enter any discussion here. All this begs the question why you even bother to post here if not to demonstrate once again that you loath Craig with passion and that you fail to cope with other people's liking of Craig.

    Now, let me tell you how grown-ups do this. Grown-ups state their issues with a film, an actor, a creative choice, ... once or twice and then let it pass for a while. For example, if I wanted to, I could copy myself every day stating the problems I have with AVTAK. I may recap them once every 6 months or so, and even then I use neutral words and avoid sounding like I think that fans of the film are nitwits. I don't use silly hyperboles or spiteful remarks because I'm stating my opinion but with respect to those who have a different one. And when a thread is about an AVTAK appreciation, I either contribute by summing up what things I do appreciate about the film, or I don't post anything in that thread at all.

    You, by contrast, continuously enter discussions about SF or Craig, knowing very well that your disdain for all things Craig is by now infamous on this forum. But that doesn't stop you from adding more fuel to the fire, which tells me something about you. It tells me that in the end you don't care about having a grown-up debate, you only care about having a fight. And the fact that your scornful tone and negative input make you progressively less popular amongst the members of this forum, seems to only encourage you.

    Take my advice and avoid these threads until you have learned to post in a more reasonable, less attention seeking fashion. Thank you.

    ^:)^ Well said, very well said @DarthDimi.
  • Posts: 15,124
    Question: ever seen in these forums people wanting Sean Connery or Roger Moore to return? I mean now, or when they were well in their sixties? It seems that it is only some (not all) Brosnan fans who won't let it go. I was a Brosnan fan until DAD. I thought then he might make a last one. But I thought at his age then, he had more Bond movies behind him than ahead.
  • Posts: 908
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Sorry,if somebody mentioned this before on the last 12 Pages (I simply don't have the will to go through them) but this might be the most superflouos question of them all on this Forum. After all,this would only make Sense,if they planned to make the last Bond Movie ever and show him old,grey and exhausted. But given the fact,that Craig already looks older than Brosnan (and has given us all of the before mentioned,exept the goodbye for good) there is hardly a need to change the Impersonator here.

    It saddens me, @Matt_Helm, that you struggle so much with the popularity of Daniel Craig that you have to produce such a provocative post.

    Sorry you see it this Way. I was merely making a joke regarding my opinion on the possibilities of a Brosnan Comeback (and an acceptable good one I think ). Also, not even SFs supporters deny,that Craig looks really quite old with this beard/stubble/whatever. Not that I'm aware of,however.

    With a word like "impersonator" and all the mentioning of "old", "exhausted" and whatnot, combined with your posting history, it's not a joke at all, @Matt_Helm.
    I remember a very shortlived internet cult called craigisntbond or whatever. It's become the laughing stock of this forum. So you might have unintentionally raised a joke by reminding us of those poor souls.

    Truth is, this thread is about Brosnan returning yet you spent half your post being very condescending towards Craig with an obvious subtext of being also condescending towards Craig's fans. The other half of your post indicates that you think the thread's question so stupid you don't even care to read the previous pages in order to enter any discussion here. All this begs the question why you even bother to post here if not to demonstrate once again that you loath Craig with passion and that you fail to cope with other people's liking of Craig.

    Now, let me tell you how grown-ups do this. Grown-ups state their issues with a film, an actor, a creative choice, ... once or twice and then let it pass for a while. For example, if I wanted to, I could copy myself every day stating the problems I have with AVTAK. I may recap them once every 6 months or so, and even then I use neutral words and avoid sounding like I think that fans of the film are nitwits. I don't use silly hyperboles or spiteful remarks because I'm stating my opinion but with respect to those who have a different one. And when a thread is about an AVTAK appreciation, I either contribute by summing up what things I do appreciate about the film, or I don't post anything in that thread at all.

    You, by contrast, continuously enter discussions about SF or Craig, knowing very well that your disdain for all things Craig is by now infamous on this forum. But that doesn't stop you from adding more fuel to the fire, which tells me something about you. It tells me that in the end you don't care about having a grown-up debate, you only care about having a fight. And the fact that your scornful tone and negative input make you progressively less popular amongst the members of this forum, seems to only encourage you.

    Take my advice and avoid these threads until you have learned to post in a more reasonable, less attention seeking fashion. Thank you.


    So here is my rebuttal:

    With a word like "impersonator" and all the mentioning of "old", "exhausted" and whatnot, combined with your posting history, it's not a joke at all, @Matt_Helm.
    MH: my Dictionary defines an Impersonator as "one who poses as someone else". Last Time I checked this was how sane People see every Bond Actor from Connery to Craig. About the Old and exhausted Thing, well how would you show 007 in a New Brosnan Bond Film?

    I remember a very shortlived internet cult called craigisntbond or whatever. It's become the laughing stock of this forum. So you might have unintentionally raised a joke by reminding us of those poor souls.
    MH: my jokes are very rarely unintentionally

    Truth is, this thread is about Brosnan returning yet you spent half your post being very condescending towards Craig with an obvious subtext of being also condescending towards Craig's fans.
    MH: look at Craig in the shooting range scene. If there has ever been a Bond that looks that old and past his prime, then I don't know which one (rumor has it, that this is exactly what they intended)

    The other half of your post indicates that you think the thread's question so stupid you don't even care to read the previous pages in order to enter any discussion here.
    MH: why should I? It is a ridiculous question and reading all of those Pages would make just as much sense,as following a discussion why England will win next years WC in Brasil.

    All this begs the question why you even bother to post here if not to demonstrate once again that you loath Craig with passion and that you fail to cope with other people's liking of Craig.
    MH: Reread my answers above

    Now, let me tell you how grown-ups do this. Grown-ups state their issues with a film, an actor, a creative choice, ... once or twice and then let it pass for a while. For example, if I wanted to, I could copy myself every day stating the problems I have with AVTAK. I may recap them once every 6 months or so, and even then I use neutral words and avoid sounding like I think that fans of the film are nitwits. I don't use silly hyperboles or spiteful remarks because I'm stating my opinion but with respect to those who have a different one. And when a thread is about an AVTAK appreciation, I either contribute by summing up what things I do appreciate about the film, or I don't post anything in that thread at all.
    You, by contrast, continuously enter discussions about SF or Craig, knowing very well that your disdain for all things Craig is by now infamous on this forum. But that doesn't stop you from adding more fuel to the fire, which tells me something about you. It tells me that in the end you don't care about having a grown-up debate, you only care about having a fight. And the fact that your scornful tone and negative input make you progressively less popular amongst the members of this forum, seems to only encourage you.
    MH: about that negativity of mine:just about each and every time when I offered my opinion on this Forum it was to counter the negative remarks of someone else. You know the kind of "P&W are crap, if you don't like SF you don't know Fleming and should go watch Moore Bonds and DAD , Brosnan only collected his paycheck and didn't care for a quality Script (something Craig surely would insist on. Simply ridiculous with a Guy, who stars in Films called Cowboys and Aliens), and whatever ...
    If all I am is about negativity for its own sake with no sound reasoning offered to back my opinions, then why Nobody takes the Chance to get rid of me forever and shows me just one Thing in SF that makes Sense! I offered this challenge twice the last few months,and so far the only things that came up were "Silva wanting revenge is logical" (revenge is a passion,not a rational) and "M is getting sacked after loosing the Hard Disc" (something that doesn't do anything for or against the Storys Development ). Nothing else,exept quite some name calling. If SF was only one hundredth as good as People claim here, this shouldn't be possible. It's just that simple! Now that Sandy,the world class researcher, has joined the discussion maybe she could help you with that,when she has come up from knees praising you (or whatever she's doing down there).

    Take my advice and avoid these threads until you have learned to post in a more reasonable, less attention seeking fashion. Thank you.
    MH: I guess by that you mean offering no more critical opinions and stopping thinking altogether (at least as long everybody else here agrees with my reasoning, of course).
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Sorry,if somebody mentioned this before on the last 12 Pages (I simply don't have the will to go through them) but this might be the most superflouos question of them all on this Forum. After all,this would only make Sense,if they planned to make the last Bond Movie ever and show him old,grey and exhausted. But given the fact,that Craig already looks older than Brosnan (and has given us all of the before mentioned,exept the goodbye for good) there is hardly a need to change the Impersonator here.

    It saddens me, @Matt_Helm, that you struggle so much with the popularity of Daniel Craig that you have to produce such a provocative post.

    Sorry you see it this Way. I was merely making a joke regarding my opinion on the possibilities of a Brosnan Comeback (and an acceptable good one I think ). Also, not even SFs supporters deny,that Craig looks really quite old with this beard/stubble/whatever. Not that I'm aware of,however.

    With a word like "impersonator" and all the mentioning of "old", "exhausted" and whatnot, combined with your posting history, it's not a joke at all, @Matt_Helm.
    I remember a very shortlived internet cult called craigisntbond or whatever. It's become the laughing stock of this forum. So you might have unintentionally raised a joke by reminding us of those poor souls.

    Truth is, this thread is about Brosnan returning yet you spent half your post being very condescending towards Craig with an obvious subtext of being also condescending towards Craig's fans. The other half of your post indicates that you think the thread's question so stupid you don't even care to read the previous pages in order to enter any discussion here. All this begs the question why you even bother to post here if not to demonstrate once again that you loath Craig with passion and that you fail to cope with other people's liking of Craig.

    Now, let me tell you how grown-ups do this. Grown-ups state their issues with a film, an actor, a creative choice, ... once or twice and then let it pass for a while. For example, if I wanted to, I could copy myself every day stating the problems I have with AVTAK. I may recap them once every 6 months or so, and even then I use neutral words and avoid sounding like I think that fans of the film are nitwits. I don't use silly hyperboles or spiteful remarks because I'm stating my opinion but with respect to those who have a different one. And when a thread is about an AVTAK appreciation, I either contribute by summing up what things I do appreciate about the film, or I don't post anything in that thread at all.

    You, by contrast, continuously enter discussions about SF or Craig, knowing very well that your disdain for all things Craig is by now infamous on this forum. But that doesn't stop you from adding more fuel to the fire, which tells me something about you. It tells me that in the end you don't care about having a grown-up debate, you only care about having a fight. And the fact that your scornful tone and negative input make you progressively less popular amongst the members of this forum, seems to only encourage you.

    Take my advice and avoid these threads until you have learned to post in a more reasonable, less attention seeking fashion. Thank you.


    So here is my rebuttal:

    With a word like "impersonator" and all the mentioning of "old", "exhausted" and whatnot, combined with your posting history, it's not a joke at all, @Matt_Helm.
    MH: my Dictionary defines an Impersonator as "one who poses as someone else". Last Time I checked this was how sane People see every Bond Actor from Connery to Craig. About the Old and exhausted Thing, well how would you show 007 in a New Brosnan Bond Film?

    I remember a very shortlived internet cult called craigisntbond or whatever. It's become the laughing stock of this forum. So you might have unintentionally raised a joke by reminding us of those poor souls.
    MH: my jokes are very rarely unintentionally

    Truth is, this thread is about Brosnan returning yet you spent half your post being very condescending towards Craig with an obvious subtext of being also condescending towards Craig's fans.
    MH: look at Craig in the shooting range scene. If there has ever been a Bond that looks that old and past his prime, then I don't know which one (rumor has it, that this is exactly what they intended)

    The other half of your post indicates that you think the thread's question so stupid you don't even care to read the previous pages in order to enter any discussion here.
    MH: why should I? It is a ridiculous question and reading all of those Pages would make just as much sense,as following a discussion why England will win next years WC in Brasil.

    All this begs the question why you even bother to post here if not to demonstrate once again that you loath Craig with passion and that you fail to cope with other people's liking of Craig.
    MH: Reread my answers above

    Now, let me tell you how grown-ups do this. Grown-ups state their issues with a film, an actor, a creative choice, ... once or twice and then let it pass for a while. For example, if I wanted to, I could copy myself every day stating the problems I have with AVTAK. I may recap them once every 6 months or so, and even then I use neutral words and avoid sounding like I think that fans of the film are nitwits. I don't use silly hyperboles or spiteful remarks because I'm stating my opinion but with respect to those who have a different one. And when a thread is about an AVTAK appreciation, I either contribute by summing up what things I do appreciate about the film, or I don't post anything in that thread at all.
    You, by contrast, continuously enter discussions about SF or Craig, knowing very well that your disdain for all things Craig is by now infamous on this forum. But that doesn't stop you from adding more fuel to the fire, which tells me something about you. It tells me that in the end you don't care about having a grown-up debate, you only care about having a fight. And the fact that your scornful tone and negative input make you progressively less popular amongst the members of this forum, seems to only encourage you.
    MH: about that negativity of mine:just about each and every time when I offered my opinion on this Forum it was to counter the negative remarks of someone else. You know the kind of "P&W are crap, if you don't like SF you don't know Fleming and should go watch Moore Bonds and DAD , Brosnan only collected his paycheck and didn't care for a quality Script (something Craig surely would insist on. Simply ridiculous with a Guy, who stars in Films called Cowboys and Aliens), and whatever ...
    If all I am is about negativity for its own sake with no sound reasoning offered to back my opinions, then why Nobody takes the Chance to get rid of me forever and shows me just one Thing in SF that makes Sense! I offered this challenge twice the last few months,and so far the only things that came up were "Silva wanting revenge is logical" (revenge is a passion,not a rational) and "M is getting sacked after loosing the Hard Disc" (something that doesn't do anything for or against the Storys Development ). Nothing else,exept quite some name calling. If SF was only one hundredth as good as People claim here, this shouldn't be possible. It's just that simple! Now that Sandy,the world class researcher, has joined the discussion maybe she could help you with that,when she has come up from knees praising you (or whatever she's doing down there).

    Take my advice and avoid these threads until you have learned to post in a more reasonable, less attention seeking fashion. Thank you.
    MH: I guess by that you mean offering no more critical opinions and stopping thinking altogether (at least as long everybody else here agrees with my reasoning, of course).

    So from now on, "impersonator" is the word we use for actors? :-)) Great. Well then, mister typist (because you type on your keyboard), explain why you put many of your nouns' first letter in capital. Since we are taking things so literally suddenly...

    The argument about differing opinions leaves not much of an impression any more. Somehow, you and I have never really met around here. At least I can't recall having ever argued with you about Craig or SF or whatever. Certainly not in a recent past. Yet when I read your post, I felt not only addressed but also given the finger. Honestly, I don't think I've done anything to you to deserve that. Furthermore, if you feel like some members persistently attack you, flag their posts instead of progressively radiating more bitterness towards the entire forum. Also, about that challenge, we have dozens of SF related threads where many members have stated clearly why they think SF is good. The problem isn't that they fail to do so; the problem is that you are not willing to accept their arguments, which would tell me for example that it's time to drop the issue. Even then, I have no problem with you trying to defend that which you hold as your opinion. But you choose your words in such a way that they are deliberately provocative. If you weren't hoping for a response, if you weren't looking for your post to be flagged multiple times, if you were hoping for a decent debate, you would have formulated your opinion in another way. I enjoy talking about SF with people, especially when they don't agree with me. It leaves an open window for interesting discussions. But once the phrasing turns insulting, I'm out. I don't need a playground attitude on this forum.

    Lastly, I hope @Sandy is not offended by that ugly comment of yours.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    No need to worry @DarthDimi, I don't waste time paying any attention to what this guy says. You see, there is a big difference between the likes of him and there likes of you and me ;)
  • Sandy wrote:
    No need to worry @DarthDimi, I don't waste time paying any attention to what this guy says. You see, there is a big difference between the likes of him and there likes of you and me ;)

    Now this is class =D> I know that I've taken something positive out of it and these comments echo my thoughts on the matter as well :)
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 6,396
    @Matt_Helm's mindset is typical of that of a 'conspiracy theorist'. He see his view as black and white and will dismiss everything and anything that anybody else will throw at him.

    Whenever he asks a question such as the example he provided above"Name one thing that makes sense in SF" and is then bombarded with answers, he refuses to acknowledge a single one of them. No matter what anybody says to him, he always has an excuse to counter his argument.

    The truth is no matter what any of us say, he's never going to see things objectively, he's made up his mind that what he says is factual and everyone else's opinion is stone dead wrong.

    The question posed in this thread refers to PB so it would be nice if, just once, he could participate in a debate without having to mention DC or SF. But I doubt it.
  • Posts: 908
    @Matt_Helm's mindset is typical of that of a 'conspiracy theorist'. He see his view as black and white and will dismiss everything and anything that anybody else will throw at him.

    Whenever he asks a question such as the example he provided above"Name one thing that makes sense in SF" and is then bombarded with answers, he refuses to acknowledge a single one of them. No matter what anybody says to him, he always has an excuse to counter his argument.

    The truth is no matter what any of us say, he's never going to see things objectively, he's made up his mind that what he says is factual and everyone else's opinion is stone dead wrong.

    The question posed in this thread refers to PB so it would be nice if, just once, he could participate in a debate without having to mention DC or SF. But I doubt it.


    Yawn. Where exactly is that Bombardement I refuse to answer you're talking about? All I ever get is lame arguments like your "M gets sacked" Statement and " name your exact issue, so we can discuss it" (which is especially cheap,since this has been done by quite a few People here, and all they ever got were some more or less absurd explenations, the "it's just a Bond film" and of course the usual ridiculing. Exactly that sad state of Affairs was the reason why I choose to offer my challenge. So come on, this is YOUR chance now,with a mods attention focused on me. Take just one Out of that supposed argument Bombardement, ram it in my big,stupid mouth and wink goodbye to me for good (although I have a hunch,that all i will get is the usual "see,he just doesn't listen,he just a .... )
  • Posts: 15,124
    The views of MH are not merely provocative, they are inflammatory. And cowardly too: when he mentions that Craig is an impersonator, everybody understood rightly that he meant he did not deserve the role of Bond, that he meant an impostor. Then he tries to back off from criticism saying he meant actor. But both words are not synonymous and do not even have even remotely similar subtext. An actor incarnates someone, a good one anyway, an impersonator imitates to deceive. Of course it is utterly off topic, but that is the point of MH, instead of honestly debating the subject, he hides attacking Craig. Trolls are cowards.
  • Posts: 908
    Ludovico wrote:
    The views of MH are not merely provocative, they are inflammatory. And cowardly too: when he mentions that Craig is an impersonator, everybody understood rightly that he meant he did not deserve the role of Bond, that he meant an impostor. Then he tries to back off from criticism saying he meant actor. But both words are not synonymous and do not even have even remotely similar subtext. An actor incarnates someone, a good one anyway, an impersonator imitates to deceive. Of course it is utterly off topic, but that is the point of MH, instead of honestly debating the subject, he hides attacking Craig. Trolls are cowards.

    The fact,that english is not my native tongue,means nothing to you, I suppose. I wonder in how many Languages you can articulate yourself?
  • Posts: 15,124
    Only two, and I know a bit of Italian, but this is non sequitur and you are deflecting as always. English is not my mothertongue either. But tell me, without attacking Craig and SF, what is your answer to the OP and why? And when IF SF was Craig's last Bond and he was considered as bad as you think, this would still be irrelevant to this thread. Come on, without being a coward, tell us what's your answer to the OP.
  • Posts: 6,396
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    @Matt_Helm's mindset is typical of that of a 'conspiracy theorist'. He see his view as black and white and will dismiss everything and anything that anybody else will throw at him.

    Whenever he asks a question such as the example he provided above"Name one thing that makes sense in SF" and is then bombarded with answers, he refuses to acknowledge a single one of them. No matter what anybody says to him, he always has an excuse to counter his argument.

    The truth is no matter what any of us say, he's never going to see things objectively, he's made up his mind that what he says is factual and everyone else's opinion is stone dead wrong.

    The question posed in this thread refers to PB so it would be nice if, just once, he could participate in a debate without having to mention DC or SF. But I doubt it.


    Yawn. Where exactly is that Bombardement I refuse to answer you're talking about? All I ever get is lame arguments like your "M gets sacked" Statement and " name your exact issue, so we can discuss it" (which is especially cheap,since this has been done by quite a few People here, and all they ever got were some more or less absurd explenations, the "it's just a Bond film" and of course the usual ridiculing. Exactly that sad state of Affairs was the reason why I choose to offer my challenge. So come on, this is YOUR chance now,with a mods attention focused on me. Take just one Out of that supposed argument Bombardement, ram it in my big,stupid mouth and wink goodbye to me for good (although I have a hunch,that all i will get is the usual "see,he just doesn't listen,he just a .... )

    You've pretty much made my point right there. I and many others on this forum have provided you with the information you were looking for in other threads but still you refuse to acknowledge them. You are just blinded by your own arrogance. If you don't have anything else to contribute to this topic, I suggest you either don't add anything further or go back to dcinb.com.
  • Matt_Helm wrote:
    @Matt_Helm's mindset is typical of that of a 'conspiracy theorist'. He see his view as black and white and will dismiss everything and anything that anybody else will throw at him.

    Whenever he asks a question such as the example he provided above"Name one thing that makes sense in SF" and is then bombarded with answers, he refuses to acknowledge a single one of them. No matter what anybody says to him, he always has an excuse to counter his argument.

    The truth is no matter what any of us say, he's never going to see things objectively, he's made up his mind that what he says is factual and everyone else's opinion is stone dead wrong.

    The question posed in this thread refers to PB so it would be nice if, just once, he could participate in a debate without having to mention DC or SF. But I doubt it.


    Yawn. Where exactly is that Bombardement I refuse to answer you're talking about? All I ever get is lame arguments like your "M gets sacked" Statement and " name your exact issue, so we can discuss it" (which is especially cheap,since this has been done by quite a few People here, and all they ever got were some more or less absurd explenations, the "it's just a Bond film" and of course the usual ridiculing. Exactly that sad state of Affairs was the reason why I choose to offer my challenge. So come on, this is YOUR chance now,with a mods attention focused on me. Take just one Out of that supposed argument Bombardement, ram it in my big,stupid mouth and wink goodbye to me for good (although I have a hunch,that all i will get is the usual "see,he just doesn't listen,he just a .... )

    You've pretty much made my point right there. I and many others on this forum have provided you with the information you were looking for in other threads but still you refuse to acknowledge them. You are just blinded by your own arrogance. If you don't have anything else to contribute to this topic, I suggest you either don't add anything further or go back to dcinb.com.

    I have suggested this before as well, alas, like everything else it falls on deaf ears. I only wish :))

  • Posts: 6,396
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    @Matt_Helm's mindset is typical of that of a 'conspiracy theorist'. He see his view as black and white and will dismiss everything and anything that anybody else will throw at him.

    Whenever he asks a question such as the example he provided above"Name one thing that makes sense in SF" and is then bombarded with answers, he refuses to acknowledge a single one of them. No matter what anybody says to him, he always has an excuse to counter his argument.

    The truth is no matter what any of us say, he's never going to see things objectively, he's made up his mind that what he says is factual and everyone else's opinion is stone dead wrong.

    The question posed in this thread refers to PB so it would be nice if, just once, he could participate in a debate without having to mention DC or SF. But I doubt it.


    Yawn. Where exactly is that Bombardement I refuse to answer you're talking about? All I ever get is lame arguments like your "M gets sacked" Statement and " name your exact issue, so we can discuss it" (which is especially cheap,since this has been done by quite a few People here, and all they ever got were some more or less absurd explenations, the "it's just a Bond film" and of course the usual ridiculing. Exactly that sad state of Affairs was the reason why I choose to offer my challenge. So come on, this is YOUR chance now,with a mods attention focused on me. Take just one Out of that supposed argument Bombardement, ram it in my big,stupid mouth and wink goodbye to me for good (although I have a hunch,that all i will get is the usual "see,he just doesn't listen,he just a .... )

    You've pretty much made my point right there. I and many others on this forum have provided you with the information you were looking for in other threads but still you refuse to acknowledge them. You are just blinded by your own arrogance. If you don't have anything else to contribute to this topic, I suggest you either don't add anything further or go back to dcinb.com.

    I have suggested this before as well, alas, like everything else it falls on deaf ears. I only wish :))

    It's like a broken record. He goes on and on and on and on. Yes we all get it. Really, we do! You hate Daniel Craig. You hate Skyfall. You yearn for the return of Pierce Brosnan. We understand. You no longer need to remind us. Now for the love of God, leave it there and try discussing the topic in hand.
  • Posts: 908
    Ludovico wrote:
    Only two, and I know a bit of Italian, but this is non sequitur and you are deflecting as always. English is not my mothertongue either. But tell me, without attacking Craig and SF, what is your answer to the OP and why? And when IF SF was Craig's last Bond and he was considered as bad as you think, this would still be irrelevant to this thread. Come on, without being a coward, tell us what's your answer to the OP.

    What does OP mean,exactly?
  • Posts: 908
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    @Matt_Helm's mindset is typical of that of a 'conspiracy theorist'. He see his view as black and white and will dismiss everything and anything that anybody else will throw at him.

    Whenever he asks a question such as the example he provided above"Name one thing that makes sense in SF" and is then bombarded with answers, he refuses to acknowledge a single one of them. No matter what anybody says to him, he always has an excuse to counter his argument.

    The truth is no matter what any of us say, he's never going to see things objectively, he's made up his mind that what he says is factual and everyone else's opinion is stone dead wrong.

    The question posed in this thread refers to PB so it would be nice if, just once, he could participate in a debate without having to mention DC or SF. But I doubt it.


    Yawn. Where exactly is that Bombardement I refuse to answer you're talking about? All I ever get is lame arguments like your "M gets sacked" Statement and " name your exact issue, so we can discuss it" (which is especially cheap,since this has been done by quite a few People here, and all they ever got were some more or less absurd explenations, the "it's just a Bond film" and of course the usual ridiculing. Exactly that sad state of Affairs was the reason why I choose to offer my challenge. So come on, this is YOUR chance now,with a mods attention focused on me. Take just one Out of that supposed argument Bombardement, ram it in my big,stupid mouth and wink goodbye to me for good (although I have a hunch,that all i will get is the usual "see,he just doesn't listen,he just a .... )

    You've pretty much made my point right there. I and many others on this forum have provided you with the information you were looking for in other threads but still you refuse to acknowledge them. You are just blinded by your own arrogance. If you don't have anything else to contribute to this topic, I suggest you either don't add anything further or go back to dcinb.com.

    See,just as I predicted. No beef,just hot Air!
  • Posts: 15,124
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Only two, and I know a bit of Italian, but this is non sequitur and you are deflecting as always. English is not my mothertongue either. But tell me, without attacking Craig and SF, what is your answer to the OP and why? And when IF SF was Craig's last Bond and he was considered as bad as you think, this would still be irrelevant to this thread. Come on, without being a coward, tell us what's your answer to the OP.

    What does OP mean,exactly?

    Original Post. Which is: Could Pierce Brosnan feasibly come back to do a Bond after Craig leaves?

    Come on, now you have no more excuses. No whining about Craig looking older than Brosnan, not only is it ridiculous false, it is IRRELEVANT even if it was true.
  • Posts: 6,396
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    @Matt_Helm's mindset is typical of that of a 'conspiracy theorist'. He see his view as black and white and will dismiss everything and anything that anybody else will throw at him.

    Whenever he asks a question such as the example he provided above"Name one thing that makes sense in SF" and is then bombarded with answers, he refuses to acknowledge a single one of them. No matter what anybody says to him, he always has an excuse to counter his argument.

    The truth is no matter what any of us say, he's never going to see things objectively, he's made up his mind that what he says is factual and everyone else's opinion is stone dead wrong.

    The question posed in this thread refers to PB so it would be nice if, just once, he could participate in a debate without having to mention DC or SF. But I doubt it.


    Yawn. Where exactly is that Bombardement I refuse to answer you're talking about? All I ever get is lame arguments like your "M gets sacked" Statement and " name your exact issue, so we can discuss it" (which is especially cheap,since this has been done by quite a few People here, and all they ever got were some more or less absurd explenations, the "it's just a Bond film" and of course the usual ridiculing. Exactly that sad state of Affairs was the reason why I choose to offer my challenge. So come on, this is YOUR chance now,with a mods attention focused on me. Take just one Out of that supposed argument Bombardement, ram it in my big,stupid mouth and wink goodbye to me for good (although I have a hunch,that all i will get is the usual "see,he just doesn't listen,he just a .... )

    You've pretty much made my point right there. I and many others on this forum have provided you with the information you were looking for in other threads but still you refuse to acknowledge them. You are just blinded by your own arrogance. If you don't have anything else to contribute to this topic, I suggest you either don't add anything further or go back to dcinb.com.

    See,just as I predicted. No beef,just hot Air!

    Just to satisfy my curiosity, how old are you exactly? Don't need your exact age but 20's, 30's, 40's?
  • As cool as Brosnan was, I think if they ever did a film about an older Bond, they should bring back Dalton.
    Getafix wrote:
    Bring back Dalts!
    He's over 60 but he looks great. The campaign starts here, Dalton for Bond 24!!!!
    Getafix wrote:
    Legend. Send Craig his p45, bring Sir Sean's hairpiece out of retirement and let's have some proper Bondness!

    Craig is signed on for 24 and 25 now.

    So Dalton for Bond 26!!!
  • Posts: 908
    Ludovico wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Only two, and I know a bit of Italian, but this is non sequitur and you are deflecting as always. English is not my mothertongue either. But tell me, without attacking Craig and SF, what is your answer to the OP and why? And when IF SF was Craig's last Bond and he was considered as bad as you think, this would still be irrelevant to this thread. Come on, without being a coward, tell us what's your answer to the OP.


    What does OP mean,exactly?

    Original Post. Which is: Could Pierce Brosnan feasibly come back to do a Bond after Craig leaves?

    Come on, now you have no more excuses. No whining about Craig looking older than Brosnan, not only is it ridiculous false, it is IRRELEVANT even if it was true.

    Let me paste in the first two Lines of my original post:
    "Sorry,if somebody mentioned this before on the last 12 Pages (I simply don't have the will to go through them) but this might be the most superflouos question of them all on this Forum. After all,this would only make Sense,if they planned to make the last Bond Movie ever and show him old,grey and exhausted."
    I would have thought that makes my opinion quite clear. I think the idea is utter nonsense. James Bond is supposed to be a winner,a man of complete self confidence. After all that is what separates him from guys like ...,well us. He might (even must) struggle on his Way to victory, but at the end he comes out on Top of things,simply because the stakes are too high and England (the world) can't risk to loose. An Old Bond in my mind would only work as the last Bond Movie ever. That would indeed a story that should be a treat to write for every aspired writer worth its salt,but so long ....
    HELL, NO!!!
  • Posts: 908
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    @Matt_Helm's mindset is typical of that of a 'conspiracy theorist'. He see his view as black and white and will dismiss everything and anything that anybody else will throw at him.

    Whenever he asks a question such as the example he provided above"Name one thing that makes sense in SF" and is then bombarded with answers, he refuses to acknowledge a single one of them. No matter what anybody says to him, he always has an excuse to counter his argument.

    The truth is no matter what any of us say, he's never going to see things objectively, he's made up his mind that what he says is factual and everyone else's opinion is stone dead wrong.

    The question posed in this thread refers to PB so it would be nice if, just once, he could participate in a debate without having to mention DC or SF. But I doubt it.


    Yawn. Where exactly is that Bombardement I refuse to answer you're talking about? All I ever get is lame arguments like your "M gets sacked" Statement and " name your exact issue, so we can discuss it" (which is especially cheap,since this has been done by quite a few People here, and all they ever got were some more or less absurd explenations, the "it's just a Bond film" and of course the usual ridiculing. Exactly that sad state of Affairs was the reason why I choose to offer my challenge. So come on, this is YOUR chance now,with a mods attention focused on me. Take just one Out of that supposed argument Bombardement, ram it in my big,stupid mouth and wink goodbye to me for good (although I have a hunch,that all i will get is the usual "see,he just doesn't listen,he just a .... )

    You've pretty much made my point right there. I and many others on this forum have provided you with the information you were looking for in other threads but still you refuse to acknowledge them. You are just blinded by your own arrogance. If you don't have anything else to contribute to this topic, I suggest you either don't add anything further or go back to dcinb.com.

    See,just as I predicted. No beef,just hot Air!

    Just to satisfy my curiosity, how old are you exactly? Don't need your exact age but 20's, 30's, 40's?

    I almost hate to say it, but it's the last one.
    I think I have a close idea what is coming now, but go ahead ....
  • Posts: 15,124
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Only two, and I know a bit of Italian, but this is non sequitur and you are deflecting as always. English is not my mothertongue either. But tell me, without attacking Craig and SF, what is your answer to the OP and why? And when IF SF was Craig's last Bond and he was considered as bad as you think, this would still be irrelevant to this thread. Come on, without being a coward, tell us what's your answer to the OP.


    What does OP mean,exactly?

    Original Post. Which is: Could Pierce Brosnan feasibly come back to do a Bond after Craig leaves?

    Come on, now you have no more excuses. No whining about Craig looking older than Brosnan, not only is it ridiculous false, it is IRRELEVANT even if it was true.

    Let me paste in the first two Lines of my original post:
    "Sorry,if somebody mentioned this before on the last 12 Pages (I simply don't have the will to go through them) but this might be the most superflouos question of them all on this Forum. After all,this would only make Sense,if they planned to make the last Bond Movie ever and show him old,grey and exhausted."
    I would have thought that makes my opinion quite clear. I think the idea is utter nonsense. James Bond is supposed to be a winner,a man of complete self confidence. After all that is what separates him from guys like ...,well us. He might (even must) struggle on his Way to victory, but at the end he comes out on Top of things,simply because the stakes are too high and England (the world) can't risk to loose. An Old Bond in my mind would only work as the last Bond Movie ever. That would indeed a story that should be a treat to write for every aspired writer worth its salt,but so long ....
    HELL, NO!!!

    For once, your opinion actually makes sense.

    So why bring Daniel Craig and Skyfall into your comment afterwards?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    For the record @Matt_Helm while I don't necessarily agree with everything you say, I do sympathise. I actually quite enjoy a bit of provocation on here, DaltonCraig used to give me plenty of entertainment and you seem to be his heir apparent. My mother feels pretty much the same as yourself and she spent 18 years of her life sitting through Bond films at my behest, so I can cut her some slack for not 'getting' Craig as Bond. You could maybe tone down the vitriol, but I don't think you should feel obliged to 'knock it on the head', perhaps consider the more provocative posts more carefully as you can get slightly personal. That said, I'd rather have you posting on here than some of the 'genuine' trolls.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 6,396
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    @Matt_Helm's mindset is typical of that of a 'conspiracy theorist'. He see his view as black and white and will dismiss everything and anything that anybody else will throw at him.

    Whenever he asks a question such as the example he provided above"Name one thing that makes sense in SF" and is then bombarded with answers, he refuses to acknowledge a single one of them. No matter what anybody says to him, he always has an excuse to counter his argument.

    The truth is no matter what any of us say, he's never going to see things objectively, he's made up his mind that what he says is factual and everyone else's opinion is stone dead wrong.

    The question posed in this thread refers to PB so it would be nice if, just once, he could participate in a debate without having to mention DC or SF. But I doubt it.


    Yawn. Where exactly is that Bombardement I refuse to answer you're talking about? All I ever get is lame arguments like your "M gets sacked" Statement and " name your exact issue, so we can discuss it" (which is especially cheap,since this has been done by quite a few People here, and all they ever got were some more or less absurd explenations, the "it's just a Bond film" and of course the usual ridiculing. Exactly that sad state of Affairs was the reason why I choose to offer my challenge. So come on, this is YOUR chance now,with a mods attention focused on me. Take just one Out of that supposed argument Bombardement, ram it in my big,stupid mouth and wink goodbye to me for good (although I have a hunch,that all i will get is the usual "see,he just doesn't listen,he just a .... )

    You've pretty much made my point right there. I and many others on this forum have provided you with the information you were looking for in other threads but still you refuse to acknowledge them. You are just blinded by your own arrogance. If you don't have anything else to contribute to this topic, I suggest you either don't add anything further or go back to dcinb.com.

    See,just as I predicted. No beef,just hot Air!

    Just to satisfy my curiosity, how old are you exactly? Don't need your exact age but 20's, 30's, 40's?

    I almost hate to say it, but it's the last one.
    I think I have a close idea what is coming now, but go ahead ....

    If you're already thinking it then it really doesn't need saying.
  • Posts: 908
    Ludovico wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Matt_Helm wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Only two, and I know a bit of Italian, but this is non sequitur and you are deflecting as always. English is not my mothertongue either. But tell me, without attacking Craig and SF, what is your answer to the OP and why? And when IF SF was Craig's last Bond and he was considered as bad as you think, this would still be irrelevant to this thread. Come on, without being a coward, tell us what's your answer to the OP.


    What does OP mean,exactly?

    Original Post. Which is: Could Pierce Brosnan feasibly come back to do a Bond after Craig leaves?

    Come on, now you have no more excuses. No whining about Craig looking older than Brosnan, not only is it ridiculous false, it is IRRELEVANT even if it was true.

    Let me paste in the first two Lines of my original post:
    "Sorry,if somebody mentioned this before on the last 12 Pages (I simply don't have the will to go through them) but this might be the most superflouos question of them all on this Forum. After all,this would only make Sense,if they planned to make the last Bond Movie ever and show him old,grey and exhausted."
    I would have thought that makes my opinion quite clear. I think the idea is utter nonsense. James Bond is supposed to be a winner,a man of complete self confidence. After all that is what separates him from guys like ...,well us. He might (even must) struggle on his Way to victory, but at the end he comes out on Top of things,simply because the stakes are too high and England (the world) can't risk to loose. An Old Bond in my mind would only work as the last Bond Movie ever. That would indeed a story that should be a treat to write for every aspired writer worth its salt,but so long ....
    HELL, NO!!!

    For once, your opinion actually makes sense.

    So why bring Daniel Craig and Skyfall into your comment afterwards?

    Well,just to state that there would be no need for changing the horse in the middle of the race,if they intended to make this last Bond Film. Call me whatever you want,but I really do think he looks extremly old with this stubble and the pale/grey skin he sports until Shanghai (and since I am about his Age, I think I have quite a good idea,how a man in the 40ies should look like)
Sign In or Register to comment.