It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Bond isnt suppose to be a thug with blonde hair
So shallow...Craig was not a thug in SF if you watched it without prejudice.
GoldenEye > Casino Royale
GoldenEye > Quantum of Solace
GoldenEye > SkyFall
Tomorrow Never Dies > Casino Royale
Tomorrow Never Dies > Quantum of Solace
Tomorrow Never Dies > SkyFall
The World is not Enough > Casino Royale
The World is not Enough > Quantum of Solace
The World is not Enough > SkyFall
Die Another Day < Casino Royale
Die Another Day <Quantum of Solace
Die Another Day < SkyFall
That about says enough, haha!
I think that says enough for me!
Skyfall isnt out...im reffering to QOS
Exactly!
Same here.
Too bloody right!!
"As with most people, my exposure to Bond began with the movies, and it was some time before I began to read Ian Fleming's books. But once I did I was in for quite a surprise. Fleming's Bond is very different from the Bond of the silver screen. Fleming's Bond isn't so confident or sauve. He isn't a ladies man, rather he is described as cruel. He is frail, flawed, depressed, arguably an alcoholic and takes speed to help him perform his fantastic feats, that is, he is very, very human. This is a far cry from Sean Connery's portrayal of the superhuman, irresistible womanizer."
This passage is a bit of an over-simplification, of course. It seems to me Connery's Bond is a bit more nuanced than he is being given credit for here, while it's difficult to imagine Fleming's Bond as frail (perhaps vulnerable would have been a better word choice), but the passage did serve to remind me that one's opinion about what James Bond ought to be can be very much dependent on where and when one was first exposed to the character.
Fair enough. But why Craig in your avatar? Before I read your posts, I assumed by your picture he was your favourite.
But I sincerely appreciate you are honest. Why? Because there is no way I can believe that everyone who loved Brosnan or Moore would be sold on Craig. If Brosnan is the Bond you prefer, then Craig could not be further away from that.
Ah, yes, the only argument an anti Craig fan can make. Laughable.
How so?
Well, I don't consider my avatar is Daniel Craig, it's Blood Stone's James Bond, who acted like a true professional than in the films. Anyway, I respect your opinions, my friend. Each to his own.
My eyes deceive. Very true but from a cursory glance it looks like him as the picture is so small.
Each to his own. By the way, I certainly hope I did not attack you for your opinions. I appreciate we as fans all are territorial about our favourites.
If we all liked the same thing, life would be dull. Why I accept Craig easier than some is because I like the serious Daltonesque approach. And I like seeing highly trained actors in the role.