Your Bond Party Affiliation

Loeffelholz · September 2007

I'd look just a little further down that first page, Chris...you sound like a Bond-Centrist to me...and we're damned glad to meet you! {[]

CasinoChris75 · September 2007

Loeffelholz wrote:

and we're damned glad to meet you! {[]

Thanks, but I'm not really a newby. I have posted off and on since 2002. My original username was Tiger.

This was me-
www.ajb007.co.uk/members.php?profile=Tiger

youknowmyname · September 2007

JennyFlexFan wrote:

Also they'd never see through my master plan, it would be like Octopussy, so convoluted that 24 years later people still can't figure all of it out! MUAHAHAHA!!!! :v

Great JFF, you even have the over the top cinema Bond villian laugh. Now all you need is a swivel chair and a cat.

) So true about that Octopussy plot, I still don't get it either.

DEFIANT 74205 · September 2007

I suppose you could say that I'm a Centrist. In a way, I believe that Ian Fleming's Bond novels is the bible of James Bond - how Fleming has written him is exactly how the character of James Bond should behave - chain smoking, Bentley driving misogynist. I've always bemoaned the politically-correct brigade for stopping Bond smoking and the commercialism that has stopped Bond from driving a Bentley 4.5-litre convertible in films. I have never read a Bond novel not written by Fleming and I have no intention of doing so, for it will just be a poor imitation of Fleming's work.

However, I also enjoy most Bond films, particularly the early ones starring Connery. They were the ones that brought the Bond character to "life", so to speak. Whenever I read Bond novels, the picture I get in my head is that of the Connery Bond. I also like the Dalton Bond, because he brought back the real traditional Fleming Bond. I'm not too keen on the lighter style movies, though.

Great thread, there are indeed many different types of Bond fans.

Andy A 007 · September 2007

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

I suppose you could say that I'm a Centrist. In a way, I believe that Ian Fleming's Bond novels is the bible of James Bond - how Fleming has written him is exactly how the character of James Bond should behave - chain smoking, Bentley driving misogynist. I've always bemoaned the politically-correct brigade for stopping Bond smoking and the commercialism that has stopped Bond from driving a Bentley 4.5-litre convertible in films. I have never read a Bond novel not written by Fleming and I have no intention of doing so, for it will just be a poor imitation of Fleming's work.

However, I also enjoy most Bond films, particularly the early ones starring Connery. They were the ones that brought the Bond character to "life", so to speak. Whenever I read Bond novels, the picture I get in my head is that of the Connery Bond. I also like the Dalton Bond, because he brought back the real traditional Fleming Bond. I'm not too keen on the lighter style movies, though.

Great thread, there are indeed many different types of Bond fans.

If you don't mind me saying so, DIFIANT 74205, You sound like a definate Flemingist to me.

SB_Diamond · September 2007

I must say Loeffelholz that whenever I read anything you post it always sounds very smart to me. With this post you are doing for Bond fans what Freud did for clinical psychology. {[] All in good fun of course.

I myself would say I am a Bond centrist that leans towards the Flemingist side. Mostly because I'm not crazy about the 'spectacle'-style Bonds as you put it. I think that sometimes less is more as proven by CR and consequently DAD and its annoying over-the-topness and over-elaborateness.

Loeffelholz · September 2007

Thanks, SB_Diamond, you're too kind -{ I think a few of the mods probably cringe whenever I start a thread like this...due, primarily, to a spectacular failure during the Craig Wars

|)

Actually, Tee Hee and I were having a conversation some time ago, and this thread is the result. I thought it would be interesting for identify (admittedly) generalized categories of Bond fandom, and solicit comments. I think most everyone is probably a "Something" with "Something-Else" tendencies, when all is said and done...but we have to kill time somehow until #22 starts shooting, so...

I'm gratified that there are more Flemingists out there than I thought...but it's a tribute to his creation that there are legions of fans for each divergent interpretation.

youknowmyname · September 2007

Loeffelholz wrote:

...but we have to kill time somehow until #22 starts shooting, so...

Yeah, I mean what else would we do...work?

) I think this is one of my favorite threads Loef(other than elimination games) and it has been fun to hear other Flemingists out there. I am a convert from the other side and knowing that there are so many Flemingists out there is a comfort to someone like me. Now all we need is our own website, myspace page, and a party platform. haha. {[]

Tee Hee · September 2007

youknowmyname wrote:

Now all we need is our own website, myspace page, and a party platform. haha. {[]

And Rogue Agent to come up with the Bonditical Party logos! {[]

JennyFlexFan · September 2007

Knowing him, he'd give the CBT's an Oscar or a squirrel for our logo. 8-)

And SB Diamond (it's so sad, she likes AVTAK

) has been taken in by Loeff's golden words, oh SB Diamond... beware of his heart of gold... that heart is COOOOOOOOOLD!!!! HE LOVES ONLY GOLD!!! ONLY GOLD!!! HE LOVES GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Still, I think we'll be able to garner enough support Tee Hee.

Loeffelholz · September 2007

JennyFlexFan wrote:

And SB Diamond (it's so sad, she likes AVTAK ) has been taken in by Loeff's golden words, oh SB Diamond... beware of his heart of gold... that heart is COOOOOOOOOLD!!!! HE LOVES ONLY GOLD!!! ONLY GOLD!!! HE LOVES GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

) {[]

The best laugh I've had all day...thank you, sir...

Dan Same · September 2007

First of all, a very interesting topic Loeff. -{

I would probably say that I am a Cinematic Bond Traditionalist. (I know, surprise surprise.

)) I am yet to read Fleming (although that is not to say that I won't) and the things that I love have really been established by the films themselves. I am of course a big Moore and Brosnan fan and I dislike Dalton and wasn't a huge fan of CR and Craig. But I am also a bit of a Bond-Centrist as, although I haven't read Fleming, I adore the first four films and OHMSS, and I wasn't overjoyed with DAD and the second half of MR.

If someone read my list, they would see that bigger-scale, 'spectacle'-style Bonds feature high in my list (GF, TB and TSWLM are in my top 6) but, I don't like extremes which is why DAD is third last on my list.

I do appreciate and enjoy the 'formula' but I like to see it played out in different ways. One of my biggest problems with TND is that IMO it was extremely derivative. All of my favourite Bond films (the 60's films, LALD, TSWLM, FYEO, GE, TWINE) share fundamental elements but all play off these elements in different ways. That's why, although I've been accused of being set in my ways (

), I am actually more flexible than some people give me credit for. But not so flexible as to appreciate the reboot and lack of Q and Moneypenny.

)

It's funny as most of my views were shaped by the Connery films (followed by the Moore films) yet Femingists also claim allegance to the Connery films.

I guess this shows that, while we might disagree on CR, many fans seem to believe that the Connery films were indeed the greatest Bond films of all time.

BTW, if elections are held, I'm voting for Tee Hee.

)

5000th post. {[] {[] {[]

Capt Dominic Flandry · September 2007

I bought several of the novels from a summer fete when I was at primary school and I've always enjoyed them as entertaining potboilers and an escapist window into another era. As far as the films go I've enjoyed the different approaches and appreciated Timothy Dalton and George Lazenby. I like the big, silly films and the more restrained ones. Overall I'm probably more of a traditional Bond fan given that the current dour and po-faced reading of Bond by Paul Haggis and Daniel Craig has left me unmoved.

Georgiboy · September 2007

Quite an interesting topic. I think I'm leaning more towards Cinematic Bond Traditionalist. I love both Roger Moore and Sean Connery. I have only read one bond book and it was TB and I thought it was pretty good, but I prefer the films over the books. I keep going back and forth between loving Connery and loving Moore. It is very hard to choose between them. But I like the style of Moore's movies better that is why I think I'm more of a cinematic traditionalist.

Loeffelholz · September 2007

I figured you for a Traditionalist, Georgiboy. That's cool {[]

Thanks for posting!

Mailfist · October 2007

Bond-centerist with a leaning to Flemingist.

Agent Sidewinder · October 2007

Cinematic Bond Traditionalist, all the way.

Loeffelholz · October 2007

Good to see the CBTs asserting a bit of parity into the discussion {[]

The CBT Party Leader, Tee Hee, will be most gratifed for the support of his platform

I wonder whether CR and the reboot have done anything to sway anyone's position...or perhaps solidify it, as was the case with Mr. Hee, whose opposition to the reboot is probably the foundation of his Party leanings {:)

JennyFlexFan · October 2007

Though I belong to the party CR's awfulness (sorry, I meant, the reboot {:) ) is not the only thing guiding the party. I think one thing that supports our base, as well as the reboot thing, is that Roger Moore is not as bad as you Flemingists make him out to be! The much-maligned Bond is a gem in our eyes.

Tee Hee · October 2007

Loeffelholz wrote:

Good to see the CBTs asserting a bit of parity into the discussion {[]

The CBT Party Leader, Tee Hee, will be most gratifed for the support of his platform

I am ecstatic!

My fellow CBTs, keep the faith and continue the fight for justice! {[]

Loeffelholz wrote:

I wonder whether CR and the reboot have done anything to sway anyone's position...or perhaps solidify it, as was the case with Mr. Hee, whose opposition to the reboot is probably the foundation of his Party leanings {:)

The reboot was definitely an abomination, but then again so was the casting of Daniel Craig.

Those guys at CNB are right you know: Daniel Craig is not Bond. I'd just as soon join their ranks, however they have conducted their boycott/protest in a very distasteful manner. It really hurts our cause.

I can't blame Daniel Craig entirely for that drivel you call a Bond movie. The script itself was un-Bondian, denying Craig the opportunity to fully capture the essence of the character we have enjoyed for 45 long years. That said, I don't think he could have pulled it off anyway, even in the presence of all the elements. {:)

I'm anxiously waiting for the Craig Era to pass through Bond history like a cruel thunder storm.

Roll over, not on, Bond #22...

[Tee Hee exits, slips one of Bonds #1-20 into his DVD player to remind him of the "good old days" when Bond films were Bond films, not just everyday action flicks.]

youknowmyname · October 2007

JennyFlexFan wrote:

Though I belong to the party CR's awfulness (sorry, I meant, the reboot {:) ) is not the only thing guiding the party. I think one thing that supports our base, as well as the reboot thing, is that Roger Moore is not as bad as you Flemingists make him out to be! The much-maligned Bond is a gem in our eyes.

I am a Flemingist who enjoys Moore's movies. However, I enjoy them in a different way than I enjoy the more Flemingesque Bond films. However, I do agree that most Flemingists would not rate Moore highly and that his Bond is probably the biggest deviation from Flemings (although this point could be argued).

Moore used to be my favorite Bond until I read Fleming's novels. At first I couldn't understand what had happened...and then it hit me, I had become a Flemingist.

Loeffelholz · October 2007

youknowmyname wrote:

Moore used to be my favorite Bond until I read Fleming's novels. At first I couldn't understand what had happened...and then it hit me, I had become a Flemingist.

...and somewhere, an angel gets his wings

{[]

Tee Hee · October 2007

Loeffelholz wrote:

...and somewhere, an angel gets his wings

{[]

...that or a kitten somewhere suffers a terribly excruciating death.

Reeeeeer!

)

Hmmm, perhaps the death of a pigeon would have been more appropriate.

You happy now? The poor sap won't live to double-take another day!

)

Loeffelholz · October 2007

Tee Hee wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

...and somewhere, an angel gets his wings

{[]

...that or a kitten somewhere suffers a terribly excruciating death.

Reeeeeer! )

Hmmm, perhaps the death of a pigeon would have been more appropriate.

My goodness, the violence of the CBT movement is alarming...perhaps an independent counsel is in order :v

cbdouble07 · November 2007

I've thought about this for awhile, and am not sure quite what I am. I first became interested in the Bond movies through the famous Goldeneye videogame. Watched all the movies, mostly in the order of release and loved them. Sean Connery was my favorite Bond, but I also really liked Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore. I grew up through my teenage years watching and enjoying all these movies. Then came Die Another Day. I enjoyed it quite a bit on the first couple viewings but then on my third viewing came to the sudden realization that despite some good elements, the movie was kind of tired, as if the producers had stopped carrying and were just throwing stuff together half-heartedly.

I began to read the Fleming books, beginning with Casino Royale and enjoyed them immensely. My mental image of Bond that I had gathered from the films changed a little. Somehow the cinematical Bond just didn't fit with what I had read in Fleming. My favorite films became the movies that stayed true to the books such as FRWL and OHMSS. Casino Royale came out and it felt like a breath of fresh air. And best of all Daniel Craig, looking like the best Bond since Connery, actually seemed to FIT my image of Bond in a way.

So in short, I feel like a Flemingest because I believe that the best Bond movies are those that stay true to Fleming and are not bogged down in gadgets and silliness. I like how the films are now going back to the basics with Daniel Craig. But that said I feel a little CBT in me because I did grow up with the Bond films and enjoy them all, even Moonraker. My Flemingest side loves the realistic and Fleming based material of FRWL, and my CBT side can just sit back with a grin and enjoy TSWLM. So I guess I fall somewhere in the middle, a Centrist perhaps.

Loeffelholz · November 2007

Thanks for posting here, cbdouble07, and a belated welcome to AJB {[]

I'm very happy that you made the effort to actually read Fleming, and I'm not surprised that doing so changed your perception of the character---or that Craig fit your image of Bond. Truth be told, I enjoy all the Bond films also---I just enjoy some more than others

cbdouble07 wrote:

Daniel Craig, looking like the best Bond since Connery

Couldn't have said it better myself :v B-)

Loeffelholz · November 2007

Dan Same wrote:

First of all, a very interesting topic Loeff. -{

I would probably say that I am a Cinematic Bond Traditionalist. (I know, surprise surprise. )) I am yet to read Fleming (although that is not to say that I won't) and the things that I love have really been established by the films themselves. I am of course a big Moore and Brosnan fan and I dislike Dalton and wasn't a huge fan of CR and Craig. But I am also a bit of a Bond-Centrist as, although I haven't read Fleming, I adore the first four films and OHMSS, and I wasn't overjoyed with DAD and the second half of MR.

If someone read my list, they would see that bigger-scale, 'spectacle'-style Bonds feature high in my list (GF, TB and TSWLM are in my top 6) but, I don't like extremes which is why DAD is third last on my list.

I do appreciate and enjoy the 'formula' but I like to see it played out in different ways. One of my biggest problems with TND is that IMO it was extremely derivative. All of my favourite Bond films (the 60's films, LALD, TSWLM, FYEO, GE, TWINE) share fundamental elements but all play off these elements in different ways. That's why, although I've been accused of being set in my ways ( ), I am actually more flexible than some people give me credit for. But not so flexible as to appreciate the reboot and lack of Q and Moneypenny. )

It's funny as most of my views were shaped by the Connery films (followed by the Moore films) yet Femingists also claim allegance to the Connery films. I guess this shows that, while we might disagree on CR, many fans seem to believe that the Connery films were indeed the greatest Bond films of all time.

BTW, if elections are held, I'm voting for Tee Hee. )

5000th post. {[] {[] {[]

My apologies for catching up to this post so terribly late, Dan {[] I'd say you are definitely a CBT, albeit with Centrist leanings, but your latent centrism probably wouldn't prohibit you from a leadership position in Tee Hee's party

I remain hopeful that one day you will take a chance on Mr. Fleming's writing :v

JennyFlexFan · November 2007

Loeffelholz wrote:

I remain hopeful that one day you will take a chance on Mr. Fleming's writing :v

I've taken a chance on it! I read Moonraker and found it very enjoyable but I believe that Moore could've pulled off that character if it was presented to him. They really wanted to distance him from Sean. But still, I'm a proud CBT and I'm glad that Dan is as well.

Dan Same · November 2007

Loeffelholz wrote:

My apologies for catching up to this post so terribly late, Dan {[] I'd say you are definitely a CBT, albeit with Centrist leanings, but your latent centrism probably wouldn't prohibit you from a leadership position in Tee Hee's party

Thanks. I was wondering when you would comment.

As for joining Tee Hee's party; I'm ready to do my bit and all he has to do is ask me.

Loeffelholz wrote:

I remain hopeful that one day you will take a chance on Mr. Fleming's writing :v

It may happen sooner than you think. :v

Another Loeffelholz · February 2008

Hey Everyone,
As a new member, I just wanted to check in on this thread and see where everyone's Bonditical beliefs stood. And to register myself.
My affiliaton will come as a suprise to no one, I'm sure, as I'm Loeffelholz's brother. Growing up in the 70's, my introduction to the series was with Roger Moore in the movie theatres (Loeffelholz and I feverishly munching popcorn in crazed excitement as Bond winked at us through the screen and assured us that he would live, unscathed through the current adventure) Loved those movies, still do, with all my heart. Then also at that time, of course, there were the Sean Connery Sunday Night Movies broadcast on television. (Long before the household vcr, when this was a huge event!!!!) You know what I'm talkin' about.(Loeffelholz and I sitting inches from the television unblinking, refusing to leave to eat or pee or talk to anyone until a commercial) Wow, this Connery guy is for real !!! Then, imagine the scene when I'm (I think) in 7th grade and Loeffelholz is tired of not being able to discuss the "literary" Bond with me, and tosses me a tattered paper back of Casino Royale and tells me to start there. WOOOOAAHHHH!!! Things Change !!!! The sky splits open and the real... REAL guy is revealed !!! This is Bond !!!!!I read 'em all. Will read them again, and again. And will always hope that the magic of that book character can be conveyed as faithfully as possible in these movies that I already so desperately love before they're even made ( Quantum of Solace ? are you kidding me ? Can't WAIT !!). So Centrist? Sure, a bit, aren't we all deep down? But primarily, when I was handed that tattered paper back of Casino Royale ( the exact copy of which he just gave me again, this time to keep, a couple of months ago) a lifetime card carrying Flemingist was born.

Your Bond Party Affiliation

Comments