Hey, Failsafe, not a bad name for a movie though it would get the punning critical backlash I suppose.
But it's been already used. . .a very famous Stanley Kramer anti-nuclear film that came out around the same time as Dr. Strangelove (which it somewhat resembles) and which George Clooney remade for TV.
I hear what your saying JohnMasterson. Only your Opinions count and Only they should be expressed ( like sour milk from an unrighteous breast) :v and I'm sorry I annoy you. ( free speech and all that, old Boy ). I take it you're a Star Trek Fan. ) so Like an Overweight Vulcan Live long and Perspire.
As for the needs of the Many, outweighing the few, Might I Point out that in a free society All Minorities should be Protected. It's the kind of thing Bond used to Fight for.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I hear what your saying JohnMasterson. Only your Opinions count and Only they should be expressed ( like sour milk from an unrighteous breast) :v and I'm sorry I annoy you. ( free speech and all that, old Boy ). I take it you're a Star Trek Fan. ) so Like an Overweight Vulcan Live long and Perspire.
As for the needs of the Many, outweighing the few, Might I Point out that in a free society All Minorities should be Protected. It's the kind of thing Bond used to Fight for.
I'm simply saying it's annoying that people don't like these changes to Bond because change is what 007 desperately needed back in the 90's. The Pierce Brosnan Bond Age promised a deeper examination of James Bond but we didn't get that did we? All of the Brosnan Bond movies had the potential to get inside Bond's head and uncover his motivations for doing what he does and how he feels about going up against his best friend and former MI6 agent. Or how he feels about losing an old flame (Paris Carver) that he once held onto. What they did with Bond and Elektra King was poorly executed too....They could've gone much deeper with it and actually had it effect James in some kind of meaningful way but that wasn't what happened. Then they had Bond getting captured for 14 months and they never even examined the effects of his imprisonment and torture....Pierce Brosnan was a freaking SUPERMAN, he wasn't a James Bond. That's why I get mad whenever somebody starts clamouring for the old days of 007. Cause don't you remember what they did with Pierce **** Brosnan? The old days of James Bond 007 are DEAD. They've killed it. Now it's time to forget about the old days and move on. Go forward and never look back. Ever.
"Goodbye, my son. Our hopes and dreams travel with you." Jor-El ~ Man of Steel (2013)
I'm simply saying it's annoying that people don't like these changes to Bond because change is what 007 desperately needed back in the 90's. The Pierce Brosnan Bond Age promised a deeper examination of James Bond but we didn't get that did we? All of the Brosnan Bond movies had the potential to get inside Bond's head and uncover his motivations for doing what he does and how he feels about going up against his best friend and former MI6 agent.
Only my opinion, but that's just a marketing trap.
Face it, Bond movies only make sense for the producers, if the masses pay for them.
And the masses want action, beautiful wome, exotic locations and fast cars.
All this "deeper examination" sh*t is just to feed the press with something to write about or to have a new storyline after the 27th car chase.
Bonds have never been "deep" movies. They are spectacular crackers for the movie-masses
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Bonds have never been "deep" movies. They are spectacular crackers for the movie-masses
But why is this spectacular cracker non-sense all that anyone ever wants Bond to be? It is a crime for him to be MORE than the sum of his parts? I mean the Bond formula collapsed onto itself back in 2002 under the direction of Lee Tamahori. That idiot threw all of these cutesy wink wink "It's the 20th Bond film!" moments on the screen and the 20th film and 40th year thing just became the movie's identity and it was rather stupid.
"Goodbye, my son. Our hopes and dreams travel with you." Jor-El ~ Man of Steel (2013)
:v I see, that you are very passionate about these things (We had a member called Rick Roberts here who was pretty similiar )
I for my part don't see the weak spots in DAD in the load of action and the reference to the past.
DAD was bad in the last 45 minutes and parts of the story where plain silly (brain-programming and stuff (and ah, another satellite to destroy the earth - we never had this before)). Add this with the more-than crappy CGI moments and you have a bad Bond movie.
If you re-read my post, the formula is not only action imho and DAD is just missing a lot of credibility because of what I have previously stated.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Even Fleming only gave us a bare outline of Bond. A general description and a brief out line in a couple of Novels about how Bond doesn't like to kill but takes a pride in doing it well.Leaving the reader to see the character as almost what ever he or she wants, For many years the films followed, giving little away about the character of James Bond keeping him as an Enigma. the same can be said of Most action/thriller series from John McClane, Indiana Jones and such.
Bond is a Popcorn Movie, pop into the cinema and get a fun filled thrill ride for a couple of hours, I'm not running them down but they are a formula based movie series ( as many others ) the pulic know what their getting, If it changes too much, Many general Cinema goers might stay away, Leaving only the Fans to watch saying..........
"how great the internalisation of Bonds Character in the office scene with the new Whitehall Civil servant, lent itself so well to the Black and white Nightmare sequence as Bond fights his inner demons and the ten minutes of silence as Bond stares across Red Square watching a small bird fight of some bigger Birds as a metaphore for his own struggle in life and the loss of his Beloved Vesper".
While the audience pops across to watch Ironman 3 for a nights entertainment. )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
"how great the internalisation of Bonds Character in the office scene with the new Whitehall Civil servant, lent itself so well to the Black and white Nightmare sequence as Bond fights his inner demons and the ten minutes of silence as Bond stares across Red Square watching a small bird fight of some bigger Birds as a metaphore for his own struggle in life and the loss of his Beloved Vesper".
Add this with his boring personality and his over-serious Shakespeare acting and you get a clue how I felt with his 2 outings )
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
You know....Roger Moore said something in an interview once about James Bond having the same story being told over and over again they just dress it up a bit differently. Well the original series (Dr. No-Die Another Day) got to the point where the Superman-ish James Bond was just beginning to annoy people again and they wanted Bond to be more of a down-to-earth espionage character once again.
"Goodbye, my son. Our hopes and dreams travel with you." Jor-El ~ Man of Steel (2013)
And with the Origional series 62-02, they too would Bring Bond back to basics sometimes. After YOLT, We had OHMSS,
After Moonraker, Bond came back with FYEO, even LTK wasn't strictly to formula but was a great Bond adventure ( I know it's one of Bondtoys Favourites ). All these films Kept up the action and moved the story along at a breakneck pace.
Now if these rumors are true, ( which I accept is the silly season for Bond stories until an annoucement from Eon) I for one don't want less Action in a Bond Movie. I want the exciting action sequences, the big stunts and would love a little bit of humor to come Back.
If they do cut Back on the action, then The Bonds have nothing to sell to the general Public, they will not be taken seriously as Drama thrillers in the vein of a Jon Le Carre or a Len Deighton thriller, In which It's all dailogue with little or no action.( although I also enjoy these Books and Movies as well ).
Even Flemings Novels had the Fantasy side, the garden of Death, Rockets being toppled, London to be attacked by an atomic Missile. Bond was never a true life espionage Character, he always was a Fantasy One, but set in the contemporary world.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I think this whole argument about less action and "deeper, more serious Bond" vs the same old formulaic action flick is bogus. Yes the fans like action in their Bond movies, but not necessarily to the exclusion of having some substance to the Bond character. OHMSS is a good example of how to meld both elements into an exciting, yet thought-provoking 007 adventure. From Russia With Love also had those elements. And Casino Royale was perhaps the best blend of all for me, although I realize that there are many fans who feel it strayed too far from the formula. As others have pointed out, even TWINE and DAD had certain promising traces of blending those elements until they fizzled out. So let's not be so limited in our thinking. I believe there is hope that we could see an exciting, adventured-filled Bond movie that nonetheless delves a little deeper into character. At least that is my hope.
I think this whole argument about less action and "deeper, more serious Bond" vs the same old formulaic action flick is bogus. Yes the fans like action in their Bond movies, but not necessarily to the exclusion of having some substance to the Bond character. OHMSS is a good example of how to meld both elements into an exciting, yet thought-provoking 007 adventure. From Russia With Love also had those elements. And Casino Royale was perhaps the best blend of all for me, although I realize that there are many fans who feel it strayed too far from the formula. As others have pointed out, even TWINE and DAD had certain promising traces of blending those elements until they fizzled out. So let's not be so limited in our thinking. I believe there is hope that we could see an exciting, adventured-filled Bond movie that nonetheless delves a little deeper into character. At least that is my hope.
In full agreement there. OMHSS, FRWL and CR had the best of both worlds. I hope they get closer to CR than QOS.
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
The only thing I want is less CGI. I'm quite happy for a car to roll 2 or 3 times, not 20!
Part of Bonds charm was the effort made with stunts and action sequences and I think CGI is actually the 'lazy' option even though it costs fortunes and takes hours to produce.
If you guys think I moan and Bitch about QOS don't get me started on CGI X-(
As Lady Rose points out too many Directors seem to say
"We'll just CGI something in here to show the Monster/Action/stunt "
Sometimes it's better Not to show something, keep the audience guessing and on the edge of their seats.
Imagine how crap Jaws would of been if they could of put the shark in from the start, All the suspence would of been lost.
DAD and Spiderman have some of the worst CGI I've ever seen.
Believe it or Not, I would love "Skyfall" to be another CR . ( Only about 20 minutes shorter ) )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I think this whole argument about less action and "deeper, more serious Bond" vs the same old formulaic action flick is bogus. Yes the fans like action in their Bond movies, but not necessarily to the exclusion of having some substance to the Bond character. OHMSS is a good example of how to meld both elements into an exciting, yet thought-provoking 007 adventure. From Russia With Love also had those elements. And Casino Royale was perhaps the best blend of all for me, although I realize that there are many fans who feel it strayed too far from the formula. As others have pointed out, even TWINE and DAD had certain promising traces of blending those elements until they fizzled out. So let's not be so limited in our thinking. I believe there is hope that we could see an exciting, adventured-filled Bond movie that nonetheless delves a little deeper into character. At least that is my hope.
Well said. -{
Prior to the release of QoS, I recall Michael Wilson saying it would have twice as much action as CR. So, relative to QoS, the amount of action can certainly be cut back somewhat and there will still be plenty left. It's the quality of the action that counts - integration into the story, nail-biting tension, reasonable believability, no obvious CGI, ingenious escapes, sudden surprises, etc. Give us something imaginative and memorable. And by all means explore the character. If the balance is right, both the casual and the hard core fans can be satisfied. That's the formula (or at least it should be).
A tall youngish man in a dark blue suit, white shirt and black tie turned away from the window and came towards him.
"Mr. James?" the man smiled thinly. "I'm Colonel, let's say - er - Johns."
None of this is credible and the only bit of the article (which prob gave them the idea for such a wild headline) is that Daniel Craig wants more emotional depth to Bond which I believe he has said from the moment he was confirmed as Bond a gazillion years ago.
This is just wild journalism adding to the fact Mendes is directing who is hardly renown for Action.
Don't worry guys I'm sure we will see plenty of expensive cars and boats written off (they are prob given for free anyhow so have little dent in the budget!!)
As Lady Rose points out too many Directors seem to say
"We'll just CGI something in here to show the Monster/Action/stunt "
Sometimes it's better Not to show something, keep the audience guessing and on the edge of their seats.
Imagine how crap Jaws would of been if they could of put the shark in from the start, All the suspence would of been lost.
Excellent example with Jaws there TP. Because there wasn't the technology around then, the directors had to be a bit more inventive and 'create' illusion with some good old fashion story telling and clever camera angles. Some of the spookiest/ scariest horror films I've seen over the years have been because of what you dont see .
Bond is an action hero and should remain so, but keep CGi to a minimum. It has ruined far too may films for me over the past couple of years.
CGI has ruined my viewing pleasure forever - no matter what happens in a film with CGI I am not amazed or excited as it is essentially cheating to some extent.
I can see in a few years the reverse happening and films will proclaim on their covers "CGI Free"
You sir, enjoy ragging on Daniel Craig when Pierce Brosnan is much more deserving of your ridicule? What's wrong with you!?
Okay. I'm going to be channeling this guy that I heard on bliptv so I'll write down the link once I'm done quoting him.
"Brosnan ended up just being the image of James Bond. Who was plugged into loud flashy movies. After Sean Connery established the character it was always said that each actor brought something new to the role of James Bond. George Lazenby; a physicality. Roger Moore; a tongue-in-cheek humor. Timothy Dalton; an intensity. Pierce Brosnan...I-I don't know. I'm not sure I know who Brosnan's Bond was."
Hey, Easy Big Fella. )
You don't like Brosnan, I don't like Craig
sorry I couldn't get the link to work for Me, Mabey my keyboard will only work with Bad Craig Jokes.
But I'll take your word it's very Informative and Funny, Who knows if I'd of been able to visit it It could of completely converted me to the Blonde side. )
If you notice I ended my Post with "I like to see Roger Moore do this " which surley must be in praise of DC. :x
On another Post I'm also being Attacked for Poking Fun at DC, and how AJB is full of Anti Craigers, Yet it's always My name that gets a mention Leading me to conclude,That I'm a lone voice. So I'll Give up !
So I hearby Resign from My Teasing and Poking Fun of Craig fans as I'm obviously Being very cruel to them. and Promise to never again Make any Jokes or Observations On His tenure As Bond, meekly joining in with the rest of the herd.
My one parting shot, I do find it funny that when It comes to defending Craig everyone grabes at another actor to say how bad they where, rather than giving examples of how Good Craig was in scene A or scene B, I'm sure I 'll be given some examples now, But sadly too late, as I'm no Longer fighting the tide. And simply AGREE with everyones views on him.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Finally got the link to work ( don't know why it didn't the first few times ) Nice video and can't really disagree with Many of the points made, Loved the last bit of Black and white stuff intercutting Brosnan and Craig. Very Enjoyable. -{
But you really should of warned me about Brosnan Singing )
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I do find it funny that when It comes to defending Craig everyone grabes at another actor to say how bad they where, rather than giving examples of how Good Craig was in scene A or scene B.
I'm just saying that Daniel Craig is better than Pierce Brosnan. What we got from the sixth Bond actor is better than what we got from the fifth.
"Goodbye, my son. Our hopes and dreams travel with you." Jor-El ~ Man of Steel (2013)
Like all good Bond villians ,I'm sitting back Biding my time to watch the car wreck that Bond 23 Seems to be turning out to be. :v It could indeed make QOS seem like a great Movie. )
Like all good Bond villians ,I'm sitting back Biding my time to watch the car wreck that Bond 23 Seems to be turning out to be. :v It could indeed make QOS seem like a great Movie. )
Like all good Bond villians ,I'm sitting back Biding my time to watch the car wreck that Bond 23 Seems to be turning out to be. :v It could indeed make QOS seem like a great Movie. )
I agree, the idea of going for a oscar nod suggests a drama. fills me with dread.
) I find it funny, when people don't differentiate actors from movies.
While the "main actor" is "selling" a movie, they don't have writing/editing/producing/filming power!
My opinion about Craig* is pretty positive, however, imho he was part of a crap movie.
Same with Brosnan.
*though my thoughts after that first presentation where similar to when TD was announced - boring (but saying, that he'll be a hard-edged). On Dalton I have been right, on Craig, I have been totally wrong and I admit it!
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Comments
But it's been already used. . .a very famous Stanley Kramer anti-nuclear film that came out around the same time as Dr. Strangelove (which it somewhat resembles) and which George Clooney remade for TV.
As for the needs of the Many, outweighing the few, Might I Point out that in a free society All Minorities should be Protected. It's the kind of thing Bond used to Fight for.
I'm simply saying it's annoying that people don't like these changes to Bond because change is what 007 desperately needed back in the 90's. The Pierce Brosnan Bond Age promised a deeper examination of James Bond but we didn't get that did we? All of the Brosnan Bond movies had the potential to get inside Bond's head and uncover his motivations for doing what he does and how he feels about going up against his best friend and former MI6 agent. Or how he feels about losing an old flame (Paris Carver) that he once held onto. What they did with Bond and Elektra King was poorly executed too....They could've gone much deeper with it and actually had it effect James in some kind of meaningful way but that wasn't what happened. Then they had Bond getting captured for 14 months and they never even examined the effects of his imprisonment and torture....Pierce Brosnan was a freaking SUPERMAN, he wasn't a James Bond. That's why I get mad whenever somebody starts clamouring for the old days of 007. Cause don't you remember what they did with Pierce **** Brosnan? The old days of James Bond 007 are DEAD. They've killed it. Now it's time to forget about the old days and move on. Go forward and never look back. Ever.
Only my opinion, but that's just a marketing trap.
Face it, Bond movies only make sense for the producers, if the masses pay for them.
And the masses want action, beautiful wome, exotic locations and fast cars.
All this "deeper examination" sh*t is just to feed the press with something to write about or to have a new storyline after the 27th car chase.
Bonds have never been "deep" movies. They are spectacular crackers for the movie-masses
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
But why is this spectacular cracker non-sense all that anyone ever wants Bond to be? It is a crime for him to be MORE than the sum of his parts? I mean the Bond formula collapsed onto itself back in 2002 under the direction of Lee Tamahori. That idiot threw all of these cutesy wink wink "It's the 20th Bond film!" moments on the screen and the 20th film and 40th year thing just became the movie's identity and it was rather stupid.
I for my part don't see the weak spots in DAD in the load of action and the reference to the past.
DAD was bad in the last 45 minutes and parts of the story where plain silly (brain-programming and stuff (and ah, another satellite to destroy the earth - we never had this before)). Add this with the more-than crappy CGI moments and you have a bad Bond movie.
If you re-read my post, the formula is not only action imho and DAD is just missing a lot of credibility because of what I have previously stated.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Bond is a Popcorn Movie, pop into the cinema and get a fun filled thrill ride for a couple of hours, I'm not running them down but they are a formula based movie series ( as many others ) the pulic know what their getting, If it changes too much, Many general Cinema goers might stay away, Leaving only the Fans to watch saying..........
"how great the internalisation of Bonds Character in the office scene with the new Whitehall Civil servant, lent itself so well to the Black and white Nightmare sequence as Bond fights his inner demons and the ten minutes of silence as Bond stares across Red Square watching a small bird fight of some bigger Birds as a metaphore for his own struggle in life and the loss of his Beloved Vesper".
While the audience pops across to watch Ironman 3 for a nights entertainment.
You explained perfectly why Dalton did not work:
Add this with his boring personality and his over-serious Shakespeare acting and you get a clue how I felt with his 2 outings
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
That's what I am hearing from almost EVERY new Bond movie and from EVERY new actor since 25 years 8-)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
After Moonraker, Bond came back with FYEO, even LTK wasn't strictly to formula but was a great Bond adventure ( I know it's one of Bondtoys Favourites ). All these films Kept up the action and moved the story along at a breakneck pace.
Now if these rumors are true, ( which I accept is the silly season for Bond stories until an annoucement from Eon) I for one don't want less Action in a Bond Movie. I want the exciting action sequences, the big stunts and would love a little bit of humor to come Back.
If they do cut Back on the action, then The Bonds have nothing to sell to the general Public, they will not be taken seriously as Drama thrillers in the vein of a Jon Le Carre or a Len Deighton thriller, In which It's all dailogue with little or no action.( although I also enjoy these Books and Movies as well ).
Even Flemings Novels had the Fantasy side, the garden of Death, Rockets being toppled, London to be attacked by an atomic Missile. Bond was never a true life espionage Character, he always was a Fantasy One, but set in the contemporary world.
In full agreement there. OMHSS, FRWL and CR had the best of both worlds. I hope they get closer to CR than QOS.
http://apbateman.com
Part of Bonds charm was the effort made with stunts and action sequences and I think CGI is actually the 'lazy' option even though it costs fortunes and takes hours to produce.
As Lady Rose points out too many Directors seem to say
"We'll just CGI something in here to show the Monster/Action/stunt "
Sometimes it's better Not to show something, keep the audience guessing and on the edge of their seats.
Imagine how crap Jaws would of been if they could of put the shark in from the start, All the suspence would of been lost.
DAD and Spiderman have some of the worst CGI I've ever seen.
Believe it or Not, I would love "Skyfall" to be another CR . ( Only about 20 minutes shorter )
Well said. -{
Prior to the release of QoS, I recall Michael Wilson saying it would have twice as much action as CR. So, relative to QoS, the amount of action can certainly be cut back somewhat and there will still be plenty left. It's the quality of the action that counts - integration into the story, nail-biting tension, reasonable believability, no obvious CGI, ingenious escapes, sudden surprises, etc. Give us something imaginative and memorable. And by all means explore the character. If the balance is right, both the casual and the hard core fans can be satisfied. That's the formula (or at least it should be).
"Mr. James?" the man smiled thinly. "I'm Colonel, let's say - er - Johns."
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
None of this is credible and the only bit of the article (which prob gave them the idea for such a wild headline) is that Daniel Craig wants more emotional depth to Bond which I believe he has said from the moment he was confirmed as Bond a gazillion years ago.
This is just wild journalism adding to the fact Mendes is directing who is hardly renown for Action.
Don't worry guys I'm sure we will see plenty of expensive cars and boats written off (they are prob given for free anyhow so have little dent in the budget!!)
-{
Excellent example with Jaws there TP. Because there wasn't the technology around then, the directors had to be a bit more inventive and 'create' illusion with some good old fashion story telling and clever camera angles. Some of the spookiest/ scariest horror films I've seen over the years have been because of what you dont see .
Bond is an action hero and should remain so, but keep CGi to a minimum. It has ruined far too may films for me over the past couple of years.
I can see in a few years the reverse happening and films will proclaim on their covers "CGI Free"
http://youtu.be/UKkAnHrTPrk
"I'd like to see Roger Moore ,do This "
You sir, enjoy ragging on Daniel Craig when Pierce Brosnan is much more deserving of your ridicule? What's wrong with you!?
Okay. I'm going to be channeling this guy that I heard on bliptv so I'll write down the link once I'm done quoting him.
"Brosnan ended up just being the image of James Bond. Who was plugged into loud flashy movies. After Sean Connery established the character it was always said that each actor brought something new to the role of James Bond. George Lazenby; a physicality. Roger Moore; a tongue-in-cheek humor. Timothy Dalton; an intensity. Pierce Brosnan...I-I don't know. I'm not sure I know who Brosnan's Bond was."
http://blip.tv/haphazardstuff/the-brosnan-age-part-8-9-die-another-day-5477075 Fast forward to 40:37 to hear it coming from the horse's mouth.
You don't like Brosnan, I don't like Craig
sorry I couldn't get the link to work for Me, Mabey my keyboard will only work with Bad Craig Jokes.
But I'll take your word it's very Informative and Funny, Who knows if I'd of been able to visit it It could of completely converted me to the Blonde side.
If you notice I ended my Post with "I like to see Roger Moore do this " which surley must be in praise of DC. :x
On another Post I'm also being Attacked for Poking Fun at DC, and how AJB is full of Anti Craigers, Yet it's always My name that gets a mention Leading me to conclude,That I'm a lone voice. So I'll Give up !
So I hearby Resign from My Teasing and Poking Fun of Craig fans as I'm obviously Being very cruel to them.
My one parting shot, I do find it funny that when It comes to defending Craig everyone grabes at another actor to say how bad they where, rather than giving examples of how Good Craig was in scene A or scene B, I'm sure I 'll be given some examples now, But sadly too late, as I'm no Longer fighting the tide. And simply AGREE with everyones views on him.
But you really should of warned me about Brosnan Singing
I'm just saying that Daniel Craig is better than Pierce Brosnan. What we got from the sixth Bond actor is better than what we got from the fifth.
http://youtu.be/p1fKL12qXFs
While the "main actor" is "selling" a movie, they don't have writing/editing/producing/filming power!
My opinion about Craig* is pretty positive, however, imho he was part of a crap movie.
Same with Brosnan.
*though my thoughts after that first presentation where similar to when TD was announced - boring (but saying, that he'll be a hard-edged). On Dalton I have been right, on Craig, I have been totally wrong and I admit it!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!