Nice try, Supe. But this time, your usual wit misses its mark because it doesn't address the point: Those who reject Craig out of hand are a distinct minority.
And you highhopes, fail to grasp simple logic. Could you say that those 34% who staunchly support Craig is not a minority? Practicing some fuzzy math there, are you? Subjectivity swings both ways, you know. 8-)
In this case, it must have swung and knocked you unconscious. But I'll try one more time:
The point of my original post was pretty obvious: based on the poll, people find Craig at least tolerable as 007. My interpretation of the poll is based on the common understanding of the word "average" when used in the sense of a rating or a grade: that when something is "average," it is passable, or acceptable, though certainly undistinguished. Based on that understanding, I think it's fair to say that those who find Craig at least acceptable (though certainly no great shakes) are a majority (77 percent). The remainder find Craig unacceptable -- a "bad" Bond. They are a minority of 23 percent. Yes, you could say that only a minority think Craig will be "great," but I think a logistician like yourself will agree that doesn't mean the corresponding majority thinks Craig will be a bad Bond. Those folks are still a minority of 23 percent.
Sorry Supes: no lapse in logic, no fuzzy math. no subjectivity; just Basic Poll Interpretation 101. )
Yep, take some ham, slice it and dice it and add a dash of high hopes, and viola, you get foie gras! Let me rephrase, of the group that thinks that Craig will be great, are they the majority or a minority?
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
And you highhopes, fail to grasp simple logic. Could you say that those 34% who staunchly support Craig is not a minority? Practicing some fuzzy math there, are you? Subjectivity swings both ways, you know. 8-)
In this case, it must have swung and knocked you unconscious. But I'll try one more time:
The point of my original post was pretty obvious: based on the poll, people find Craig at least tolerable as 007. My interpretation of the poll is based on the common understanding of the word "average" when used in the sense of a rating or a grade: that when something is "average," it is passable, or acceptable, though certainly undistinguished. Based on that understanding, I think it's fair to say that those who find Craig at least acceptable (though certainly no great shakes) are a majority (77 percent). The remainder find Craig unacceptable -- a "bad" Bond. They are a minority of 23 percent. Yes, you could say that only a minority think Craig will be "great," but I think a logistician like yourself will agree that doesn't mean the corresponding majority thinks Craig will be a bad Bond. Those folks are still a minority of 23 percent.
Sorry Supes: no lapse in logic, no fuzzy math. no subjectivity; just Basic Poll Interpretation 101. )
Yep, take some ham, slice it and dice it and add a dash of high hopes, and viola, you get foie gras! Let me rephrase, of the group that thinks that Craig will be great, are they the majority or a minority?
Actually, it's "voila!" Stay away from French, Supes; you have trouble enough with English, which I guess is why you ask questions I've already answered:
Yes, you could say that only a minority think Craig will be "great," but I think a logistician like yourself will agree that doesn't mean the corresponding majority thinks Craig will be a bad Bond. Those folks are still a minority of 23 percent.
The reality, Superado, painful as it may be for you to acknowledge, is that the poll may not be foie gras for Craig, but it ain't a double shot of Superado bile, either.
Actually, it's "voila!" Stay away from French, Supes; you have trouble enough with English, which I guess is why you ask questions I've already answered:
Yeah, my English is bad, what is the basis of that statement?
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Yep, take some ham, slice it and dice it and add a dash of high hopes, and viola, you get foie gras! Let me rephrase, of the group that thinks that Craig will be great, are they the majority or a minority?
Talk about spin! Yes, of course they're a minority; but the smallest minority is the one who think he'll be bad. The majority think he'll be OK or better in the role. Now tell us how that's a bad thing!
Actually, it's "voila!" Stay away from French, Supes; you have trouble enough with English, which I guess is why you ask questions I've already answered:
Yeah, my English is bad, what is the basis of that statement?
Same basis as your faulting my logic and math, I guess: I was feeling cranky. But not anymore, I'm too exhausted. ) You win, buddy.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Actually, it's "voila!" Stay away from French, Supes; you have trouble enough with English, which I guess is why you ask questions I've already answered:
Yeah, my English is bad, what is the basis of that statement?
Same basis as your faulting my logic and math, I guess: I was feeling cranky. But not anymore, I'm too exhausted. ) You win, buddy.
Okay...as long as I win Peace! {[]
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I find the word "Daltonesque" itself very interesting, bringing with it as it does a multitude of plausable interpretations.
To some this insinuates positive qualities, whilst to (for example) me it represents - in a Bond sense, anyway - an overly dour, 2-dimensional take on the role. As I have said in other threads at other times, I see a great many qualities in the literary Bond (being familiar with ALL the books, in case the question comes up!) that were conspicuous by their absence in that strrange beast which was Dalton-Bond.
I honestly think Dan Craig will be seen playing to his strengths and trying to emulate no-one. Obvious though this may seem, I do believe it's worth stating.
Whilst he may be aware of the other readings of the part - his predecessors - he will play Craig's James Bond first and foremost; in other words the take on 007 that suits his look, persona and style. He'd be mad not to, really, and I think he's professional enough, experienced enough and aware enough to realize that this is his greatest chance of making his mark and having the history books, as well as the present-day audience, accept him in favourable sense.
Whether or not you LIKE his take on the role will be, as with absolutely ALL of the other Bonds, an entirely subjective matter, but I certainly do expect DC's Bond to be different to any other and I don't think we'll see that "Daltonesque" dearth of wit, sparkle and charisma in THIS 007.
You only have to look at Craig's body of work as an actor to see how talented he is. the raw emotional journey his character went through in Our Friends In North was an outstanding performance, the drama itself gaining much high praise.
I am sure he will be a superb bond, the best since Connery, if not better.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
You only have to look at Craig's body of work as an actor to see how talented he is. the raw emotional journey his character went through in Our Friends In North was an outstanding performance, the drama itself gaining much high praise.
I am sure he will be a superb bond, the best since Connery, if not better.
Lucky for him Tom Hanks or Robert DeNiro was not cast!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Lucky for him Tom Hanks or Robert DeNiro was not cast!
I hope you're not seriously putting Hanks in the same category as De Niro.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I hope you're not putting De Niro in a class above Hanks.
Well, yes. Of course. De Niro is one of the greatest actors of all time, so why would I not put him in a class above Hanks? ?:)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
In a memorandum to Albert Broccoli, this is how Ian Fleming wanted the cinematic Bond to be:
"James Bond: James Bond is a blunt instrument wielded by a Government Department. He is quiet, hard, ruthless, sardonic, fatalistic. In his relationships with women he shows the same qualities as he does in his job, but he has a certain gentleness with them and if they get into trouble he is sometimes prepared to sacrifice his life to rescue them. But not always, and certainly not if it interferes with his job. He likes gambling, golf, and fast motor cars."
That may be, but the general public didn't take kindly to that sort of portrayal. If they went to it, all of them would dislike Bond and the movies would go nowhere. There wouldn't be a sympathetic character in the film, more people would probably be rooting for the villain than Bond himself!
I know that when Bond would exude those traits in any movie that I'd be a little turned off to the character like in NSNA (his seduction of Fearing and how he somehow manages to bed Domino and Fatima and even how he beats Largo at his own game) are characteristics that annoy me.
However, Roger Moore uses these in moderation and in a slightly more subtle tone, so he can still appear sympathetic to the audience without being overtly like what Fleming intended him to be. Connery did this as well but used it a bit more, similar to Brosnan.
But Dalton chose a different path, he really wanted to make the character his own, which lead him to his downfall. He should've learned that Connery and Moore both were successful Bond's due to their use of wit and charm, but he chose not to take that path even in the slightest. If he had more movies perhaps his incarnation of the character could be accustomed to by the moviegoers but the dramatic change from the first to the second was too much to handle.
This is only my opinion and why Licence to Kill especially ranks low on my list, for his underuse of any elements that made Bond loved by millions.
This is only my opinion and why Licence to Kill especially ranks low on my list, for his underuse of any elements that made Bond loved by millions.
And mine as well.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
That may be, but the general public didn't take kindly to that sort of portrayal. If they went to it, all of them would dislike Bond and the movies would go nowhere. There wouldn't be a sympathetic character in the film, more people would probably be rooting for the villain than Bond himself!
this hard-to-sympathise-with blunt-instrument-of-the-state does describe Kiefer Sutherlands character from 24
and that shows lasted 5 seasons, even with its unconventional structure
people seem fascinated by the question of whether Jack Bauer can really be called a "good guy"
(though i was personally disappointed the scriptwriters forgot he was now a heroin addict in Season 3)
I think in these morally ambiguous times audiences are more ready than ever for an embittered worldweary type of hero
this hard-to-sympathise-with blunt-instrument-of-the-state does describe Kiefer Sutherlands character from 24
and that shows lasted 5 seasons, even with its unconventional structure
people seem fascinated by the question of whether Jack Bauer can really be called a "good guy"
(though i was personally disappointed the scriptwriters forgot he was now a heroin addict in Season 3)
I think in these morally ambiguous times audiences are more ready than ever for an embittered worldweary type of hero
Maybe, but you still have to sympathise with Bond. He is after all the hero of the piece. He may be flawed and a little morally ambiguous but he still needs to be someone whom the audience can ultimately identify with and at the end of the day cheer for. If we didn't sympathise with him, why would we care wether he defeats the villain and wether some woman named Vesper breaks his heart?
Plus, in regards to 24, I stopped caring for Jack the moment he decided that torture was something to be done before breakfast, before luch, after dinner, and a hundred other times a day.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I have read someone else describe Casino Royale (and, by implication, Daniel Craig) as embodying the darkness of Dalton with the glamour of Fleming. I am paraphrasing, however if this is indeed true this film could be something very special indeed.
He may be flawed and a little morally ambiguous but he still needs to be someone whom the audience can ultimately identify with and at the end of the day cheer for.
Sorry, Dan, you lost me here. You must set yourself pretty high on a pedestal to think that you can't identify with a character who is 'flawed and morally' ambiguous. Those are the traits that I think make Bond accessible.
That may be, but the general public didn't take kindly to that sort of portrayal. If they went to it, all of them would dislike Bond and the movies would go nowhere. There wouldn't be a sympathetic character in the film, more people would probably be rooting for the villain than Bond himself!
Firstly, it's foolish to say that someone is good at something just because other people like what they did. I can think of a lot of things that a lot of people like that I think is absolute crap. Using popularity as a basis for truth is illegitimate.
Secondly, the idea that audiences don't like anti-heroes is rediculous. Dirty Harry was the epitome of an anti-hero, and he's one of the most beloved movie characters of all time. Same with Steve McQueen's persona. Hell, Connery's Bond in the early 60s (speaking specifically about the first two films) was a ruthless, womanizing anti-hero who got himself dirty and bloodied at times. This was still in the age of some cultural holdover from the 60s, in which things like pre-marital sexual promiscuity were big no-nos.
And if audiences hated Timothy Dalton so much, why did TLD outsell AVTAK both in terms of volume and, even more singificantly so, in terms of dollar amount world-wide? And if Roger Moore was so dynamite and invincible and was everyone's beloved who they'd cough up so much money to see, why did volume of ticket sales drop 40 million units from LALD to TMWTGG, and an average of 13.5 million units per movie from MR to AVTAK?
LTK wasn't as successful as past Bond flicks, I will grant you. But there is no evidence proving that this is because of Dalton, nor is there evidence that proves that it's because of the direction of LTK. The marketing campaign for the movie was pathetic, and there was a general downturn happening in terms of the pedigree of the franchise beginning with MR, as evidenced by ticket volume sales trends.
Sorry, Dan, you lost me here. You must set yourself pretty high on a pedestal to think that you can't identify with a character who is 'flawed and morally' ambiguous.
What does how I see myself have to do with anything? ?:) Plus, even if that were the case, perhaps you could simply respond to my comments. 8-)
Those are the traits that I think make Bond accessible.
Yes, but he still needs to be someone one can admire and cheer for. In my previous post I mentioned Jack Bauer in '24' whom I can neither admire nor cheer for as he sets himself up as a morally superior hero and is instead some guy who is addicted to torture. I like different protagonists for different reasons. I like Dirty Harry as I find him to be a completely fascinating character.
Bond, whom I would ideally describe as more of a hero than an anti-hero, is also IMO quite fascinating. However even though he is morally ambiguous (which I quite like as some of my favourite Bondian qualities, such as his sexism, are his flaws), he doesn't turn me off in the same way that Jack Bauer does. JFF said it better (although I have more tolerance for Bond's dark side than he does) but I have always felt that playing Bond requires a delicate balance. The actor needs to have both 'sympathetic' and 'flawed' character traits. Although the performances differed in quality, this balance IMO was provided in every Bond film ever made (save for LTK.)
One last point; Among hereos, I see Bond providing the middle ground between Ethan Hunt (too morally perfect) and Jack Bauer (whom I wish would just die already. X-()
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Bond, whom I would ideally describe as more of a hero than an anti-hero, is also IMO quite fascinating. However even though he is morally ambiguous (which I quite like as some of my favourite Bondian qualities, such as his sexism, are his flaws), he doesn't turn me off in the same way that Jack Bauer does. JFF said it better (although I have more tolerance for Bond's dark side than he does) but I have always felt that playing Bond requires a delicate balance. The actor needs to have both 'sympathetic' and 'flawed' character traits. Although the performances differed in quality, this balance IMO was provided in every Bond film ever made (save for LTK.)
Firstly, I think you're way off base on the LTK point, but we've been down that road before.
Secondly, I don't know why it is that you insist on not even recognizing the literary 007 tradition when you talk about what Bond should be and basically view a strongly literary-influenced interpretation to be illegitimate. (You haven't explicitly said this, but it's certainly what you imply) It's like you don't even care that the literary 007 exists, and that a lot of people want to see the literary character strongly resemble him.
Me, I just love Bond. I prefer the character to be more like the literary version, but I find it very easy to watch and enjoy a Moore film. The fact of the matter is that its Bond, whether it be the lighter version characteristic of Moore or the more literary-influenced version characteristic of Dalton. There's not one set thing that Bond SHOULD be, because Bond has been so many things. I don't see why we can't appreciate them all instead of badmouthing a certian actor or portrayal in order to promote our own agendas and make ourselves look better, smarter, more expertly, etc.. I did this with Moore for a while until I realized what I was doing, and I regret doing that because Moore is most certainly an entertaining Bond who made a significant impact that must be appreciated.
Comments
Yep, take some ham, slice it and dice it and add a dash of high hopes, and viola, you get foie gras! Let me rephrase, of the group that thinks that Craig will be great, are they the majority or a minority?
Actually, it's "voila!" Stay away from French, Supes; you have trouble enough with English, which I guess is why you ask questions I've already answered:
The reality, Superado, painful as it may be for you to acknowledge, is that the poll may not be foie gras for Craig, but it ain't a double shot of Superado bile, either.
Yeah, my English is bad, what is the basis of that statement?
Talk about spin! Yes, of course they're a minority; but the smallest minority is the one who think he'll be bad. The majority think he'll be OK or better in the role. Now tell us how that's a bad thing!
Same basis as your faulting my logic and math, I guess: I was feeling cranky. But not anymore, I'm too exhausted.
Okay...as long as I win
To some this insinuates positive qualities, whilst to (for example) me it represents - in a Bond sense, anyway - an overly dour, 2-dimensional take on the role. As I have said in other threads at other times, I see a great many qualities in the literary Bond (being familiar with ALL the books, in case the question comes up!) that were conspicuous by their absence in that strrange beast which was Dalton-Bond.
I honestly think Dan Craig will be seen playing to his strengths and trying to emulate no-one. Obvious though this may seem, I do believe it's worth stating.
Whilst he may be aware of the other readings of the part - his predecessors - he will play Craig's James Bond first and foremost; in other words the take on 007 that suits his look, persona and style. He'd be mad not to, really, and I think he's professional enough, experienced enough and aware enough to realize that this is his greatest chance of making his mark and having the history books, as well as the present-day audience, accept him in favourable sense.
Whether or not you LIKE his take on the role will be, as with absolutely ALL of the other Bonds, an entirely subjective matter, but I certainly do expect DC's Bond to be different to any other and I don't think we'll see that "Daltonesque" dearth of wit, sparkle and charisma in THIS 007.
I am sure he will be a superb bond, the best since Connery, if not better.
Lucky for him Tom Hanks or Robert DeNiro was not cast!
I hope you're not putting De Niro in a class above Hanks.
I third that.
Just seeing if I can work the quote thingy
But yeah. Timothy Dalton rocks. I watched Licence To Kill today.
Hopefully a more serious Bond in Casino Royale. Less silly jokes, less gadgets, more wit, more stern....ness (if that's a word).
Sounds like Dalton to me.
I know that when Bond would exude those traits in any movie that I'd be a little turned off to the character like in NSNA (his seduction of Fearing and how he somehow manages to bed Domino and Fatima and even how he beats Largo at his own game) are characteristics that annoy me.
However, Roger Moore uses these in moderation and in a slightly more subtle tone, so he can still appear sympathetic to the audience without being overtly like what Fleming intended him to be. Connery did this as well but used it a bit more, similar to Brosnan.
But Dalton chose a different path, he really wanted to make the character his own, which lead him to his downfall. He should've learned that Connery and Moore both were successful Bond's due to their use of wit and charm, but he chose not to take that path even in the slightest. If he had more movies perhaps his incarnation of the character could be accustomed to by the moviegoers but the dramatic change from the first to the second was too much to handle.
This is only my opinion and why Licence to Kill especially ranks low on my list, for his underuse of any elements that made Bond loved by millions.
-{
and that shows lasted 5 seasons, even with its unconventional structure
people seem fascinated by the question of whether Jack Bauer can really be called a "good guy"
(though i was personally disappointed the scriptwriters forgot he was now a heroin addict in Season 3)
I think in these morally ambiguous times audiences are more ready than ever for an embittered worldweary type of hero
Plus, in regards to 24, I stopped caring for Jack the moment he decided that torture was something to be done before breakfast, before luch, after dinner, and a hundred other times a day.
I cannot wait until November 17th.
Sorry, Dan, you lost me here. You must set yourself pretty high on a pedestal to think that you can't identify with a character who is 'flawed and morally' ambiguous. Those are the traits that I think make Bond accessible.
Firstly, it's foolish to say that someone is good at something just because other people like what they did. I can think of a lot of things that a lot of people like that I think is absolute crap. Using popularity as a basis for truth is illegitimate.
Secondly, the idea that audiences don't like anti-heroes is rediculous. Dirty Harry was the epitome of an anti-hero, and he's one of the most beloved movie characters of all time. Same with Steve McQueen's persona. Hell, Connery's Bond in the early 60s (speaking specifically about the first two films) was a ruthless, womanizing anti-hero who got himself dirty and bloodied at times. This was still in the age of some cultural holdover from the 60s, in which things like pre-marital sexual promiscuity were big no-nos.
And if audiences hated Timothy Dalton so much, why did TLD outsell AVTAK both in terms of volume and, even more singificantly so, in terms of dollar amount world-wide? And if Roger Moore was so dynamite and invincible and was everyone's beloved who they'd cough up so much money to see, why did volume of ticket sales drop 40 million units from LALD to TMWTGG, and an average of 13.5 million units per movie from MR to AVTAK?
LTK wasn't as successful as past Bond flicks, I will grant you. But there is no evidence proving that this is because of Dalton, nor is there evidence that proves that it's because of the direction of LTK. The marketing campaign for the movie was pathetic, and there was a general downturn happening in terms of the pedigree of the franchise beginning with MR, as evidenced by ticket volume sales trends.
Yes, but he still needs to be someone one can admire and cheer for. In my previous post I mentioned Jack Bauer in '24' whom I can neither admire nor cheer for as he sets himself up as a morally superior hero and is instead some guy who is addicted to torture. I like different protagonists for different reasons. I like Dirty Harry as I find him to be a completely fascinating character.
Bond, whom I would ideally describe as more of a hero than an anti-hero, is also IMO quite fascinating. However even though he is morally ambiguous (which I quite like as some of my favourite Bondian qualities, such as his sexism, are his flaws), he doesn't turn me off in the same way that Jack Bauer does. JFF said it better (although I have more tolerance for Bond's dark side than he does) but I have always felt that playing Bond requires a delicate balance. The actor needs to have both 'sympathetic' and 'flawed' character traits. Although the performances differed in quality, this balance IMO was provided in every Bond film ever made (save for LTK.)
One last point; Among hereos, I see Bond providing the middle ground between Ethan Hunt (too morally perfect) and Jack Bauer (whom I wish would just die already. X-()
Firstly, I think you're way off base on the LTK point, but we've been down that road before.
Secondly, I don't know why it is that you insist on not even recognizing the literary 007 tradition when you talk about what Bond should be and basically view a strongly literary-influenced interpretation to be illegitimate. (You haven't explicitly said this, but it's certainly what you imply) It's like you don't even care that the literary 007 exists, and that a lot of people want to see the literary character strongly resemble him.
Me, I just love Bond. I prefer the character to be more like the literary version, but I find it very easy to watch and enjoy a Moore film. The fact of the matter is that its Bond, whether it be the lighter version characteristic of Moore or the more literary-influenced version characteristic of Dalton. There's not one set thing that Bond SHOULD be, because Bond has been so many things. I don't see why we can't appreciate them all instead of badmouthing a certian actor or portrayal in order to promote our own agendas and make ourselves look better, smarter, more expertly, etc.. I did this with Moore for a while until I realized what I was doing, and I regret doing that because Moore is most certainly an entertaining Bond who made a significant impact that must be appreciated.