Pierce Brosnan, June 1994, long hair and beard plus Walther PPK. Are you saying Pierce carries a handgun with him at all times? That there was no attempt to visually tie him in with the role he was to begin playing, despite his un-Bondly appearance? Did you feel somehow duped then when you saw he wouldn't actually be playing Bond as Robinson Crusoe?
Tiring, I know, but again, why the speedboat? Too bad that you still can't come up with a plausible explanation to refute that unfortunate fact
What 'unfortunate fact'? A publicity event used an attention grabbing, 007-style entrance to introduce the new 007. He even had '007' written behind him during the conference. Did you actually think he was playing James Bond in real life at that point or something? You did hear people say 'Daniel Craig' I presume?
You've failed to respond to the 'unfortunate fact' that the Crusoe Brosnan used a PPK in his unveiling; was that somehow not the same problem?
What is the exact problem with this?
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
"...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.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Pierce Brosnan, June 1994, long hair and beard plus Walther PPK. Are you saying Pierce carries a handgun with him at all times? That there was no attempt to visually tie him in with the role he was to begin playing, despite his un-Bondly appearance? Did you feel somehow duped then when you saw he wouldn't actually be playing Bond as Robinson Crusoe?
Tiring, I know, but again, why the speedboat? Too bad that you still can't come up with a plausible explanation to refute that unfortunate fact
What 'unfortunate fact'? A publicity event used an attention grabbing, 007-style entrance to introduce the new 007. He even had '007' written behind him during the conference. Did you actually think he was playing James Bond in real life at that point or something? You did hear people say 'Daniel Craig' I presume?
What is the exact problem with this?
What's this reply all about, which is what I thought you already did in your previous post? You are reaching too much, don't be absurd. Where did I say that the producers were attempting to alter fact to make Daniel Craig, literally James Bond? I can understand if somedays you actually believe you are Napoleon, but trust me, I do not think like you. "A publicity event used an attention grabbing, 007-style entrance to introduce the new 007... " pretty much is what my point was right from the horse's mouth, in contradiction to your earlier point that you belabored that "Craig wasn't playing Bond." Are you going to play lawyer again and play the semantics card to dodge around issue?
"...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'll ask again: what is the exact problem with the speedboat thing? If you could stop insulting me and actually answer, I'd be grateful.
Okay, I'll try. I have no problem with the speedboat thing. In fact, if I were in EON's publicity staff, I'd consider that a great idea, white-knuckles withstanding. The bone of contention for me were the responses to someone actually praising Craig for looking better (implying more Bond-like) at the press con than in the film (their opinion, BTW), with the notion that he wasn't even being presented "as" Bond in the first place.
"...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.....
Over one year later, here we are on about the life-jacket incident again.
Well, I don't know about boating on the Thames, but around here it is illegal to be on a boat without a life-jacket and subject to a fine if caught. Unless the boat is docked.
I genuinely never understood that- he's an actor who's main job is to stand in front of a camera in a nice warm studio and say some words he's remembered. All the other men on those boats (also wearing life jackets) were heavily trained naval officers whose job is to be generally men of action and to fight people on sea in actual real battles involving yer actual death, high speed vehicles and cold sea swimming. And yet the nice-warm-studio man was the one who was a sissy for wearing a life jacket? ?:) The press confuse me!
The bone of contention for me were the responses to someone actually praising Craig for looking better (implying more Bond-like) at the press con than in the film (their opinion, BTW), with the notion that he wasn't even being presented "as" Bond in the first place.
I have no idea who you mean. Do you mean Napoleon's
Well if he looked so good in that press conference, how come he looks nothing like that in the film... He's had a total makeover..
reply?
Because he wasn't saying Craig looked good- he was implying that the CraigNotBond people were right to react badly to his appearance then as he changed so much for his Bond role.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
The bone of contention for me were the responses to someone actually praising Craig for looking better (implying more Bond-like) at the press con than in the film (their opinion, BTW), with the notion that he wasn't even being presented "as" Bond in the first place.
I have no idea who you mean. Do you mean Napoleon's
Well if he looked so good in that press conference, how come he looks nothing like that in the film... He's had a total makeover..
reply?
Because he wasn't saying Craig looked good- he was implying that the CraigNotBond people were right to react badly to his appearance then as he changed so much for his Bond role.
Sorry, I mentally switched my comprehension of the facts, though it is still beside the point I was making. Nervous reactions and misplaced words withstanding, I personally thought the "Bond-like" publicity efforts were appropriate, and anything less in light of the predictable backlash would have been foolish. Not to compare with who's better than who on this point, with Brosnan, the beard was forgivable since many still had the "dashing" Remington Steele in mind and that seemed to be the selling point for his taking the role.
"...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.....
So- can I take it that you agree the speedboat was a fine idea and understand why Craig didn't look like Bond at his conference and didn't mind (just as with Pierce)? That's what everyone else in this thread has been saying. Why have you been arguing against everyone and insulting those who don't understand what you're on about? Is it simply because you misunderstood Napoleon's post?
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
So- can I take it that you agree the speedboat was a fine idea and understand why Craig didn't look like Bond at his conference and didn't mind (just as with Pierce)? That's what everyone else in this thread has been saying. Why have you been arguing against everyone and insulting those who don't understand what you're on about? Is it simply because you misunderstood Napoleon's post?
What do you aim on getting? Are you hoping to embarrass me? Did I begin the insults? Again, I entered this thread with the stance that however Craig came across to different people, he was already being presented visually as Bond at the press-con, irregardless of whatever separate efforts were made to doll him up for the movie. In spite of what Napoleon Plural posted, I was responding to this facetious nonsense from you, Indian and Jimbo that Craig is not James Bond in real life and no hint of Craig as Bond in the slightest was made at the press-con. The speedboat? Incidental support to my statement, having nothing to do whatsoever with the supposed life-jacket debacle.
Did you misunderstand my initial post? Let me quote that,
"Do I understand what some of you are saying, that there was no intention at all to visually cue Daniel Craig as James Bond at the press conference?"
Is that why you went on about my "renewed crowing" and admitting that I'm wrong because I now think that Craig is Bond? What was that all about?
"...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.....
Yes; you did start the insults. And yes, you did misunderstand. Craig was presented as 'Daniel Craig: the new James Bond'; he wasn't presented as 'James Bond'. Of course he had a Bond-style entrance, but he wasn't playing Bond at the time. That's what everyone was saying he first page of this thread.
"How come he looks nothing like that in the film?" Napoleon asked- because he wasn't playing James Bond that day I replied. Was I wrong to say that? Of course they were trying to visually tie the whole event in with Bond -it was a Bond publicity event- ; but they weren't presenting him as Bond. A man wearing a suit doesn't mean he's in costume as Bond. The only bit of that they gave us was the publicity shot in which they made his hair as Bond-like as they could without cutting it (and the picture needed darkening for that) and put him in costume. Just as with the bearded Brosnan PPK shots.
I'm not even sure why you were asking the 'visual tie' question; if they were or they weren't, why would it make any difference as to how they could present him? Their options are limited when his appearance is unchangeable because of another film role or they haven't an opportunity to engage in full wardrobe and makeup decisions; or he hasn't embarked on three months of weight training. He didn't or couldn't look exactly like his James Bond that day, even if they did or didn't try. Napoloeon's post presented resentment because it seemed he didn't look just like Bond that day, which ignores the whys and wherefores and a generally realistic outlook. That what we were reacting to.
Comments
Wow!! Now I'm not feeling so immature any more
for razzing the CraigNot Bond bullies in the "Royale is a smash at the box office..." thread.
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=27181
What 'unfortunate fact'? A publicity event used an attention grabbing, 007-style entrance to introduce the new 007. He even had '007' written behind him during the conference. Did you actually think he was playing James Bond in real life at that point or something? You did hear people say 'Daniel Craig' I presume?
You've failed to respond to the 'unfortunate fact' that the Crusoe Brosnan used a PPK in his unveiling; was that somehow not the same problem?
What is the exact problem with this?
What do you mean? ?:)
What's this reply all about, which is what I thought you already did in your previous post? You are reaching too much, don't be absurd. Where did I say that the producers were attempting to alter fact to make Daniel Craig, literally James Bond? I can understand if somedays you actually believe you are Napoleon, but trust me, I do not think like you. "A publicity event used an attention grabbing, 007-style entrance to introduce the new 007... " pretty much is what my point was right from the horse's mouth, in contradiction to your earlier point that you belabored that "Craig wasn't playing Bond." Are you going to play lawyer again and play the semantics card to dodge around issue?
I'll ask again: what is the exact problem with the speedboat thing? If you could stop insulting me and actually answer, I'd be grateful.
Okay, I'll try. I have no problem with the speedboat thing. In fact, if I were in EON's publicity staff, I'd consider that a great idea, white-knuckles withstanding. The bone of contention for me were the responses to someone actually praising Craig for looking better (implying more Bond-like) at the press con than in the film (their opinion, BTW), with the notion that he wasn't even being presented "as" Bond in the first place.
I genuinely never understood that- he's an actor who's main job is to stand in front of a camera in a nice warm studio and say some words he's remembered. All the other men on those boats (also wearing life jackets) were heavily trained naval officers whose job is to be generally men of action and to fight people on sea in actual real battles involving yer actual death, high speed vehicles and cold sea swimming. And yet the nice-warm-studio man was the one who was a sissy for wearing a life jacket? ?:) The press confuse me!
I have no idea who you mean. Do you mean Napoleon's
reply?
Because he wasn't saying Craig looked good- he was implying that the CraigNotBond people were right to react badly to his appearance then as he changed so much for his Bond role.
Sorry, I mentally switched my comprehension of the facts, though it is still beside the point I was making. Nervous reactions and misplaced words withstanding, I personally thought the "Bond-like" publicity efforts were appropriate, and anything less in light of the predictable backlash would have been foolish. Not to compare with who's better than who on this point, with Brosnan, the beard was forgivable since many still had the "dashing" Remington Steele in mind and that seemed to be the selling point for his taking the role.
What do you aim on getting? Are you hoping to embarrass me? Did I begin the insults? Again, I entered this thread with the stance that however Craig came across to different people, he was already being presented visually as Bond at the press-con, irregardless of whatever separate efforts were made to doll him up for the movie. In spite of what Napoleon Plural posted, I was responding to this facetious nonsense from you, Indian and Jimbo that Craig is not James Bond in real life and no hint of Craig as Bond in the slightest was made at the press-con. The speedboat? Incidental support to my statement, having nothing to do whatsoever with the supposed life-jacket debacle.
Did you misunderstand my initial post? Let me quote that,
"Do I understand what some of you are saying, that there was no intention at all to visually cue Daniel Craig as James Bond at the press conference?"
Is that why you went on about my "renewed crowing" and admitting that I'm wrong because I now think that Craig is Bond? What was that all about?
"How come he looks nothing like that in the film?" Napoleon asked- because he wasn't playing James Bond that day I replied. Was I wrong to say that? Of course they were trying to visually tie the whole event in with Bond -it was a Bond publicity event- ; but they weren't presenting him as Bond. A man wearing a suit doesn't mean he's in costume as Bond. The only bit of that they gave us was the publicity shot in which they made his hair as Bond-like as they could without cutting it (and the picture needed darkening for that) and put him in costume. Just as with the bearded Brosnan PPK shots.
I'm not even sure why you were asking the 'visual tie' question; if they were or they weren't, why would it make any difference as to how they could present him? Their options are limited when his appearance is unchangeable because of another film role or they haven't an opportunity to engage in full wardrobe and makeup decisions; or he hasn't embarked on three months of weight training. He didn't or couldn't look exactly like his James Bond that day, even if they did or didn't try. Napoloeon's post presented resentment because it seemed he didn't look just like Bond that day, which ignores the whys and wherefores and a generally realistic outlook. That what we were reacting to.
Word to the wise-cut back on the personal attacks.