303 replies to this topic

[jaguar007]

Heads might start to roll at Eon after such a fiasco.

Or at least eyeballs if they ever read your comments.

[Goodnight]

Heads might start to roll at Eon after such a fiasco.

Or at least eyeballs if they ever read your comments.

Spot on Jaguar.

Personally I don't think this will do any damge to the franchise at all.

Jaguar, I must apologise, I went to mark that post up but I marked it down by accident.....blame my ipad!!

I'll find a couple of your other posts elsewhere and mark them up.

[Royal Dalton]

I agree that women deserve equal pay. The rest is just padding. Hopefully, the same applies to our emasculated hero's bra.

[Capsule in Space]

This PSA shows a sanctimonious actor desperate for praise and attention at the next Hamptons cocktail party. I don't see how that helps women or the Bond franchise.

I guess nothing helps women more than having the pawn of Barbara Broccoli (multi-millionaire, film franchise heiress) wearing a dress and looking like Ann Coulter.

Edited by Capsule in Space, 13 March 2011 - 01:23 AM.

[Jackanaples]

Nikki Finke, the editor & publisher of Deadline Hollywood, calls it "The very definition of ill-advised"

http://www.deadline....-terrible-idea/

I'm not saying that her voice is the most important, but it is interesting to hear that a very powerful female voice in Hollywood thinks it is a bad idea.

Obviously the video has shock value, but I don't think it succeeds in conveying the message to the audience it hopes to reform: misogynistic men.

"Oh, after seeing Daniel Craig in drag, I'll no longer make dick jokes and demean women." Right.

Keep in mind, Doublenought, this is L.A. and the film industry we're talking about. EVERYTHING is a bad idea here. Every idea for a movie, every casting, every everything. Until it works.

All of the Hollywood insiders predicted: TITANIC would bomb because everybody knows the ending. STAR WARS would fail because nobody likes science fiction. Daniel Craig is a bad casting choice for Bond. Sean Connery is a bad casting choice for Bond. PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL would bomb because people don't like pirate movies. AVATAR would bomb because the initial teaser trailer didn't look like much.

You see what I'm getting at. It's always easier to be negative. You have less chance of being wrong. But it's better to wait till you have enough information or actually know what a movie or what have you is about before making idiot predictions like that woman.

Peraonally, I think it's a great advert. It's a bit shocking and disturbing as it's meant to be. Some of those statistics give one real pause to think. The other aspect it points up is just how confident and "ballsy" Mr. Craig is in his masculinity. I honestly cannot imagine any of the previous Bond actors having the stones for something like this, though I'd like to think I was wrong about that.

Someone pointed out that the ad fails because instead of talking about the issues it tries to raise, people just talk about what the ad means for Bond. I think that's incorrect. It's true for this forum but that's only to be expected surely.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Someone pointed out that the ad fails because instead of talking about the issues it tries to raise, people just talk about what the ad means for Bond. I think that's incorrect. It's true for this forum but that's only to be expected surely.

Yes, quite.

[Iroquois]

Nikki Finke, the editor & publisher of Deadline Hollywood, calls it "The very definition of ill-advised"

http://www.deadline....-terrible-idea/

I'm not saying that her voice is the most important, but it is interesting to hear that a very powerful female voice in Hollywood thinks it is a bad idea.

Obviously the video has shock value, but I don't think it succeeds in conveying the message to the audience it hopes to reform: misogynistic men.

"Oh, after seeing Daniel Craig in drag, I'll no longer make dick jokes and demean women." Right.

Keep in mind, Doublenought, this is L.A. and the film industry we're talking about. EVERYTHING is a bad idea here. Every idea for a movie, every casting, every everything. Until it works.

All of the Hollywood insiders predicted: TITANIC would bomb because everybody knows the ending. STAR WARS would fail because nobody likes science fiction. Daniel Craig is a bad casting choice for Bond. Sean Connery is a bad casting choice for Bond. PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL would bomb because people don't like pirate movies. AVATAR would bomb because the initial teaser trailer didn't look like much.

You see what I'm getting at. It's always easier to be negative. You have less chance of being wrong. But it's better to wait till you have enough information or actually know what a movie or what have you is about before making idiot predictions like that woman.

Peraonally, I think it's a great advert. It's a bit shocking and disturbing as it's meant to be. Some of those statistics give one real pause to think. The other aspect it points up is just how confident and "ballsy" Mr. Craig is in his masculinity. I honestly cannot imagine any of the previous Bond actors having the stones for something like this, though I'd like to think I was wrong about that.

Someone pointed out that the ad fails because instead of talking about the issues it tries to raise, people just talk about what the ad means for Bond. I think that's incorrect. It's true for this forum but that's only to be expected surely.

I agree on the whole post. The video sums up a lot of what I love about Craig: he's an incredibly courageous man and yet he remains so modest and likeable.

Those I've spoken to who have seen the video and who are not hardcore fans enjoyed it and gave credit to Craig and those involved for spreading a good message. It's as simple as that really, the ad wasn't an appeal as much as it was spreading a good message to celebrate women's day, there's no political leanings involved.

[AMC Hornet]

The problem with this video as a message is that it empowers the woman by having Bond (the man) dressed as a woman rather than having the woman doing something powerful on her own. It is sort of self defeating as if to say men need to be reduced for equality rather than women moved up for equality.

...And the problem with your statement, Jag (and I mean you no disrespect here), is in referring to men being "reduced" (ie dragged down to the level of women) for equality. I understand that this isn't meant to be your attitude, but that of sexist detractors, but until we can all stop thinking and speaking in such terms, sexism will continue.

Someone pointed out that the ad fails because instead of talking about the issues it tries to raise, people just talk about what the ad means for Bond. I think that's incorrect. It's true for this forum but that's only to be expected surely.

"...and don't call me Shirley!"

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Edited by AMC Hornet, 09 March 2011 - 10:43 PM.

[MkB]

The problem with this video as a message is that it empowers the woman by having Bond (the man) dressed as a woman rather than having the woman doing something powerful on her own. It is sort of self defeating as if to say men need to be reduced for equality rather than women moved up for equality.

Right. It confuses "equally valuable as people," which men and women are, with "exactly the same," which men and women are not and will never be. Why not celebrate the unique strengths of women and also the unique strengths of men, instead of pretending that wearing the same clothes is somehow a progressive solution?

That's an interesting perspective.

Indeed...
The unique strength of men is that, on average, they have 20% more muscle mass than women and are therefore better suited for blue collar jobs.
The unique strength of women of that, on average, they're more performant at school than men, and are therefore better suited for white collar jobs.

Q.E.D.

[jaguar007]

The problem with this video as a message is that it empowers the woman by having Bond (the man) dressed as a woman rather than having the woman doing something powerful on her own. It is sort of self defeating as if to say men need to be reduced for equality rather than women moved up for equality.

...And the problem with your statement, Jag (and I mean you no disrespect here), is in referring to men being "reduced" (ie dragged down to the level of women) for equality. I understand that this isn't meant to be your attitude, but that of sexist detractors, but until we can all stop thinking and speaking in such terms, sexism will continue.

You are quite right, perhaps a bad choice or words on my part but I think you get the point I'm trying to make, the equal pay, rights of women etc, need to be brought up to the same level as man, and not reaching equality by lowering the rights of men.

[Capsule in Space]

People on this site are commenting on how Craig's PSA was "courageous". What would be courageous is if EON portrayed James Bond, and the Bond image, the same way Albert Broccoli did for most of the 20th Century. That type of portrayal would be truly courageous because, apparently, the masculinity that Sean Connery exuded as James Bond in 1962 is no longer in vogue. At least that is according to the likes of Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig.

[jaguar007]

People on this site are commenting on how Craig's PSA was "courageous". What would be courageous is if EON portrayed James Bond, and the Bond image, the same way Albert Broccoli did for most of the 20th Century. That type of portrayal would be truly courageous because, apparently, the masculinity that Sean Connery exuded as James Bond in 1962 is no longer in vogue. At least that is according to the likes of Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig.

what are you talking about, Craig is easily the most masculine Bond since Connery. They finally brought the tough guy back to Bond after Bond being a pretty playboy for far too long.

[Capsule in Space]

People on this site are commenting on how Craig's PSA was "courageous". What would be courageous is if EON portrayed James Bond, and the Bond image, the same way Albert Broccoli did for most of the 20th Century. That type of portrayal would be truly courageous because, apparently, the masculinity that Sean Connery exuded as James Bond in 1962 is no longer in vogue. At least that is according to the likes of Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig.

what are you talking about, Craig is easily the most masculine Bond since Connery. They finally brought the tough guy back to Bond after Bond being a pretty playboy for far too long.

If the fake bake tan, full body wax, blond highlights, and blue hot pants of Daniel Craig in Casino Royale are considered masculine, then Zac Efron is the next John Wayne.

[SecretAgentFan]

People on this site are commenting on how Craig's PSA was "courageous". What would be courageous is if EON portrayed James Bond, and the Bond image, the same way Albert Broccoli did for most of the 20th Century. That type of portrayal would be truly courageous because, apparently, the masculinity that Sean Connery exuded as James Bond in 1962 is no longer in vogue. At least that is according to the likes of Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig.

what are you talking about, Craig is easily the most masculine Bond since Connery. They finally brought the tough guy back to Bond after Bond being a pretty playboy for far too long.

If the fake bake tan, full body wax, blond highlights, and blue hot pants of Daniel Craig in Casino Royale are considered masculine, then Zac Efron is the next John Wayne.

Well, I´ve always been a huge fan of Sean Connery´s eyeliner myself.

[Jump James]

People on this site are commenting on how Craig's PSA was "courageous". What would be courageous is if EON portrayed James Bond, and the Bond image, the same way Albert Broccoli did for most of the 20th Century. That type of portrayal would be truly courageous because, apparently, the masculinity that Sean Connery exuded as James Bond in 1962 is no longer in vogue. At least that is according to the likes of Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig.

what are you talking about, Craig is easily the most masculine Bond since Connery. They finally brought the tough guy back to Bond after Bond being a pretty playboy for far too long.

If the fake bake tan, full body wax, blond highlights, and blue hot pants of Daniel Craig in Casino Royale are considered masculine, then Zac Efron is the next John Wayne.

Well, I´ve always been a huge fan of Sean Connery´s eyeliner myself.

Very true. I have those Blu-Rays also.

[Capsule in Space]

People on this site are commenting on how Craig's PSA was "courageous". What would be courageous is if EON portrayed James Bond, and the Bond image, the same way Albert Broccoli did for most of the 20th Century. That type of portrayal would be truly courageous because, apparently, the masculinity that Sean Connery exuded as James Bond in 1962 is no longer in vogue. At least that is according to the likes of Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig.

what are you talking about, Craig is easily the most masculine Bond since Connery. They finally brought the tough guy back to Bond after Bond being a pretty playboy for far too long.

If the fake bake tan, full body wax, blond highlights, and blue hot pants of Daniel Craig in Casino Royale are considered masculine, then Zac Efron is the next John Wayne.

Well, I´ve always been a huge fan of Sean Connery´s eyeliner myself.

Very true. I have those Blu-Rays also.

Many leading men wore eye-liner during Connery's era because the film quality was such that the actor's eyes did not show up well on the big screen. Since eyes play such an important part in an film actor's performance, make up artists would do what they could to make them more noticeable. These aides would have not been as noticeable back in the 1960's, but the remastered quality of the Blu-Ray versions make the make-up more visible. That explains that.

On the other hand. Fake bakes, spiked highlights, waxed chest, and a physique that looks as if it were manufactured by human growth hormone has no reasonable explanation. Well, maybe for a Jersey Shore audition, but certainly not for an actor playing James Bond.

[Jump James]

People on this site are commenting on how Craig's PSA was "courageous". What would be courageous is if EON portrayed James Bond, and the Bond image, the same way Albert Broccoli did for most of the 20th Century. That type of portrayal would be truly courageous because, apparently, the masculinity that Sean Connery exuded as James Bond in 1962 is no longer in vogue. At least that is according to the likes of Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig.

what are you talking about, Craig is easily the most masculine Bond since Connery. They finally brought the tough guy back to Bond after Bond being a pretty playboy for far too long.

If the fake bake tan, full body wax, blond highlights, and blue hot pants of Daniel Craig in Casino Royale are considered masculine, then Zac Efron is the next John Wayne.

Well, I´ve always been a huge fan of Sean Connery´s eyeliner myself.

Very true. I have those Blu-Rays also.

Many leading men wore eye-liner during Connery's era because the film quality was such that the actor's eyes did not show up well on the big screen. Since eyes play such an important part in an film actor's performance, make up artists would do what they could to make them more noticeable. These aides would have not been as noticeable back in the 1960's, but the remastered quality of the Blu-Ray versions make the make-up more visible. That explains that.

On the other hand. Fake bakes, spiked highlights, waxed chest, and a physique that looks as if it were manufactured by human growth hormone has no reasonable explanation. Well, maybe for a Jersey Shore audition, but certainly not for an actor playing James Bond.

Even if it was fake tan (can't think there is any evidence) surly it's the same as connerys make up, all done to create the onscreen character/illusion? Perhaps off topic.

[Jim]

People on this site are commenting on how Craig's PSA was "courageous". What would be courageous is if EON portrayed James Bond, and the Bond image, the same way Albert Broccoli did for most of the 20th Century. That type of portrayal would be truly courageous because, apparently, the masculinity that Sean Connery exuded as James Bond in 1962 is no longer in vogue. At least that is according to the likes of Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig.

what are you talking about, Craig is easily the most masculine Bond since Connery. They finally brought the tough guy back to Bond after Bond being a pretty playboy for far too long.

If the fake bake tan, full body wax, blond highlights, and blue hot pants of Daniel Craig in Casino Royale are considered masculine, then Zac Efron is the next John Wayne.

Well, I´ve always been a huge fan of Sean Connery´s eyeliner myself.

Very true. I have those Blu-Rays also.

Many leading men wore eye-liner during Connery's era because the film quality was such that the actor's eyes did not show up well on the big screen. Since eyes play such an important part in an film actor's performance, make up artists would do what they could to make them more noticeable. These aides would have not been as noticeable back in the 1960's, but the remastered quality of the Blu-Ray versions make the make-up more visible. That explains that.

On the other hand. Fake bakes, spiked highlights, waxed chest, and a physique that looks as if it were manufactured by human growth hormone has no reasonable explanation. Well, maybe for a Jersey Shore audition, but certainly not for an actor playing James Bond.

Hello. Welcome to CBn and all that.

Five posts, first day, all have a bit of a theme. Usual trend is for new members to enthuse about something they like in the James Bond films, books, games, accoutrements, whatever. Do tell us whether there's something you like about James Bond (this is a fan site, after all); the risk is this monotonous anti-Craig routine (a view you are welcome to although do watch how you express it; it can come across as pointlessly aggressive) could look a bit, y'know, suspicious, a purposeless campaign hanging off a charitable venture like a droplet of snot. You wouldn't want us thinking that you've only joined to plough an arid furrow of five-year-dead anti-Craigism momentarily reanimated by this video. That can't be a valuable use of the only life you'll ever live.

Humour us and find us something that you do enjoy. It's always nice to read that sort of thing.

[honeyjes]

It's been awhile, nothing much has changed around here I see, not hanging around, just thought I'd touch base and point out that Big Tam was a body builder and competed for Mr Universe, wore a toupee , and I’m sure his tan wasn’t his dark complexion, and said same person wasn’t averse to slapping a woman around on and off screen.

Edited by honeyjes, 10 March 2011 - 08:30 AM.

[David Schofield]

This PSA shows a santimonious actor desperate for praise and attention at the next Hamptons cocktail party. I don't see how that helps women or the Bond franchise.

I guess nothing helps women more than having the pawn of Barbara Broccoli (multi-millionaire, film franchise heiress) wearing a dress and looking like Ann Coulter.

I sort of see where you are coming from, and I've expressed my own disappointed at being preached to by this vid as though I am some kind of retard at post #59.

But, hey, this is the entertainment industry, people with ludicrous amounts of money, free time, and blinkered lifetime experiences, massive egos and superiority complexes, so what do you expect?

But I don 't doubt Bond's 1-7 would all be happy to practipate in this sort of thing, and Bond #1 even without any embarrassed irony. Don't think any would say, no, I actually believe women are inferior beings and deserve to be paid less than blokes.

This isn't some disease that's unique to Craig.

Conversely, though, for some posters say this indicates what a nice guy Craig is really are trying too hard; have you met him, do you have any first hand anecdotal evidence he's a great guy? He might be a complete in private.

Any if he is, and preaches pretentious patronising bollocks, so what? Just watch the guy's movies (or not). Don't worship him and see him as some kind shining light of modern morality.

[Capsule in Space]

People on this site are commenting on how Craig's PSA was "courageous". What would be courageous is if EON portrayed James Bond, and the Bond image, the same way Albert Broccoli did for most of the 20th Century. That type of portrayal would be truly courageous because, apparently, the masculinity that Sean Connery exuded as James Bond in 1962 is no longer in vogue. At least that is according to the likes of Barbara Broccoli and Daniel Craig.

what are you talking about, Craig is easily the most masculine Bond since Connery. They finally brought the tough guy back to Bond after Bond being a pretty playboy for far too long.

If the fake bake tan, full body wax, blond highlights, and blue hot pants of Daniel Craig in Casino Royale are considered masculine, then Zac Efron is the next John Wayne.

Well, I´ve always been a huge fan of Sean Connery´s eyeliner myself.

Very true. I have those Blu-Rays also.

Many leading men wore eye-liner during Connery's era because the film quality was such that the actor's eyes did not show up well on the big screen. Since eyes play such an important part in an film actor's performance, make up artists would do what they could to make them more noticeable. These aides would have not been as noticeable back in the 1960's, but the remastered quality of the Blu-Ray versions make the make-up more visible. That explains that.

On the other hand. Fake bakes, spiked highlights, waxed chest, and a physique that looks as if it were manufactured by human growth hormone has no reasonable explanation. Well, maybe for a Jersey Shore audition, but certainly not for an actor playing James Bond.

Hello. Welcome to CBn and all that.

Five posts, first day, all have a bit of a theme. Usual trend is for new members to enthuse about something they like in the James Bond films, books, games, accoutrements, whatever. Do tell us whether there's something you like about James Bond (this is a fan site, after all); the risk is this monotonous anti-Craig routine (a view you are welcome to although do watch how you express it; it can come across as pointlessly aggressive) could look a bit, y'know, suspicious, a purposeless campaign hanging off a charitable venture like a droplet of snot. You wouldn't want us thinking that you've only joined to plough an arid furrow of five-year-dead anti-Craigism momentarily reanimated by this video. That can't be a valuable use of the only life you'll ever live.

Humour us and find us something that you do enjoy. It's always nice to read that sort of thing.

The "PSA" is a hot topic in the Bond world right now, and people have been reacting to my comments. That explains all of my comments leaning towards one direction. I have also commented in a "Quantum of Solace" thread that seems to be a current topic of discussion. I have negative views on both Quantum of Solace and the Craig PSA, that is why all of my posts have a negative timbre.

It is evident that you are looking for forum participants that are more multi-faceted. So, I plan on posting a positive commentary in a Moonraker thread that seems relatively current.

However, there are some new responses to my comments regarding the PSA, so more comments deemed negative are to be expected from me as well.

Thank you for your comments. By the way, I saw your private message and I have left you a response.

It's been awhile, nothing much has changed around here I see, not hanging around, just thought I'd touch base and point out that Big Tam was a body builder and competed for Mr Universe, wore a toupee , and I’m sure his tan wasn’t his dark complexion, and said same person wasn’t averse to slapping a woman around on and off screen.

He was in a body building competition. Hence, this picture you posted. He is not playing Bond there, but if he was playing Bond in that picture then it would have been inappropriate for the character.

As for the toupee, he was playing a character with dark hair, so he wore it to look more like James Bond.

Edited by Capsule in Space, 10 March 2011 - 02:56 PM.

[Jim]

It is evident that you are looking for forum participants that are more multi-faceted. So, I plan on posting a positive commentary in a Moonraker thread that seems relatively current.

However, there are some new responses to my comments regarding the PSA, so more comments deemed negative are to be expected from me as well.

OK, noted, but it would be worthwhile to read about what you are interested in as, ultimately, all of us do like James Bond, in some way. It is a shame that an ostensibly negative impulse has driven you to us. i am sure you have a lot to say that is going to enthuse all, and remind us why we like James Bond.

[RTomZ]

Somehow, I knew there'd be the inevitable detractors, completely missing the point...

Who is missing the point? Are you denying there are political aspects to the promotion?

My point is not about the right and wrongs of the message, but about its political nature. Personally, there is much in it that I would support, especially in its stand against violence towards women. However I find some of its use of UK statistics deliberately biased and simplistic.

For those of you chuffed to see Bond used in conjunction with this, I would say next time Ms Broccoli uses Bond in a campaign that you don't support you might be less pleased.

Keep the Bond image out of politics!

Nah, can't agree at all. The Bond series has a history of commenting on social/political issues in the films themselves:
- American deaths due to auto accidents in 1964 (Goldfinger)
- Smoking in 1967 (YOLT)
- The energy crisis in 1974 (TMWTGG)
- Bond depicted as having less sexual partners in response to the AIDS crisis in the '80's (TLD)
- Does anyone remember the 7-Up campaign in the '90's wherein the gun was removed from the famous Bond silhouette in the ads? It was supposedly in response to gun violence in America.

I'm sure there are other examples.

Any negative issue about this "Equals" ad is much ado about nothing.

[Jim]

Somehow, I knew there'd be the inevitable detractors, completely missing the point...

Who is missing the point? Are you denying there are political aspects to the promotion?

My point is not about the right and wrongs of the message, but about its political nature. Personally, there is much in it that I would support, especially in its stand against violence towards women. However I find some of its use of UK statistics deliberately biased and simplistic.

For those of you chuffed to see Bond used in conjunction with this, I would say next time Ms Broccoli uses Bond in a campaign that you don't support you might be less pleased.

Keep the Bond image out of politics!

Nah, can't agree at all. The Bond series has a history of commenting on social/political issues in the films themselves:
- American deaths due to auto accidents in 1964 (Goldfinger)
- Smoking in 1967 (YOLT)
- The energy crisis in 1974 (TMWTGG)
- Bond depicted as having less sexual partners in response to the AIDS crisis in the '80's (TLD)
- Does anyone remember the 7-Up campaign in the '90's wherein the gun was removed from the famous Bond silhouette in the ads? It was supposedly in response to gun violence in America.

I'm sure there are other examples.

Any negative issue about this "Equals" ad is much ado about nothing.

That's interesting Tom, and true - and there's all the stuff - direct dialogue - about sexual harassment in GoldenEye, the Maxwell joke in Tomorrow Never Dies (admittedly not socio/political really, but "of its time" shall we say), the Millenium Bug payoff in TWINE (however ill-advised), stem cell research and genetic cloning in DUD, the various references to Colombian drug lords in Licence to Kill, A View to a Kill and its snood abundance, Thatch and her All Bran in For Your Eyes Only - the Bond series is a chocknockery of bits and pieces of populist political thought; this is no different.

[Dustin]

Reading through this thread (and similar ones on other sites) I can't help the feeling that some tend to see Bond as their private modern religion (and mayhap mistake themselves for pope; well, archbishop for sure). And at times people act as if they had been forced to contribute to - or witness at any rate - a major blasphemy. I'm not sure if I like this particular revelation, nor if there's anything useful left for me to contribute, so I perhaps better leave the topic well alone.

Let me just express my disconcertment here about the lack of an adequate perspective between a major pop culture icon campaigning for a just and legitimate cause and the outcry from the so-called "fanbase" about it. I can't help feeling this doesn't reflect too well on us.

[SecretAgentFan]

Reading through this thread (and similar ones on other sites) I can't help the feeling that some tend to see Bond as their private modern religion (and mayhap mistake themselves for pope; well, archbishop for sure). And at times people act as if they had been forced to contribute to - or witness at any rate - a major blasphemy. I'm not sure if I like this particular revelation, nor if there's anything useful left for me to contribute, so I perhaps better leave the topic well alone.

Let me just express my disconcertment here about the lack of an adequate perspective between a major pop culture icon campaigning for a just and legitimate cause and the outcry from the so-called "fanbase" about it.

Well put!

I can't help feeling this doesn't reflect too well on us.

Oh, I don´t know. It´s just a hot button topic which some would like to see unbuttoned.

[jaguar007]

what are you talking about, Craig is easily the most masculine Bond since Connery. They finally brought the tough guy back to Bond after Bond being a pretty playboy for far too long.

If the fake bake tan, full body wax, blond highlights, and blue hot pants of Daniel Craig in Casino Royale are considered masculine, then Zac Efron is the next John Wayne.

And he still managed to be more masculine than most of the other actors playing Bond.

Honestly I did not think he was really tan (far less than Roger Moore always was), I never noticed any highlights in his hiar either, he is naturally dark blond. As far as full body wax, I don't know, maybe he is just not that hairy and since he is blond, it does not show up on the screen like dark hair would. The type of swimsuit he wore is very common for European men to wear. Connery even wore a fairly tight short swimsuit in Thunderball (but not that short).

[Capsule in Space]

what are you talking about, Craig is easily the most masculine Bond since Connery. They finally brought the tough guy back to Bond after Bond being a pretty playboy for far too long.

If the fake bake tan, full body wax, blond highlights, and blue hot pants of Daniel Craig in Casino Royale are considered masculine, then Zac Efron is the next John Wayne.

And he still managed to be more masculine than most of the other actors playing Bond.


Honestly I did not think he was really tan (far less than Roger Moore always was), I never noticed any highlights in his hiar either, he is naturally dark blond. As far as full body wax, I don't know, maybe he is just not that hairy and since he is blond, it does not show up on the screen like dark hair would. The type of swimsuit he wore is very common for European men to wear. Connery even wore a fairly tight short swimsuit in Thunderball (but not that short).

It seems we are at an impasse here.

I don't know what Craig was managing to do with EON paying homage to the scene with Ursula Andress in Dr. No, that epitomized femininity, by having their star replicate the exact sequence wearing blue hot pants. However, I'm sure that Craig wasn't managing to exude masculinity, and the entire scene missed the "masculine" mark.

[Capsule in Space]

Somehow, I knew there'd be the inevitable detractors, completely missing the point...

Who is missing the point? Are you denying there are political aspects to the promotion?

My point is not about the right and wrongs of the message, but about its political nature. Personally, there is much in it that I would support, especially in its stand against violence towards women. However I find some of its use of UK statistics deliberately biased and simplistic.

For those of you chuffed to see Bond used in conjunction with this, I would say next time Ms Broccoli uses Bond in a campaign that you don't support you might be less pleased.

Keep the Bond image out of politics!

Nah, can't agree at all. The Bond series has a history of commenting on social/political issues in the films themselves:
- American deaths due to auto accidents in 1964 (Goldfinger)
- Smoking in 1967 (YOLT)
- The energy crisis in 1974 (TMWTGG)
- Bond depicted as having less sexual partners in response to the AIDS crisis in the '80's (TLD)
- Does anyone remember the 7-Up campaign in the '90's wherein the gun was removed from the famous Bond silhouette in the ads? It was supposedly in response to gun violence in America.

I'm sure there are other examples.

Any negative issue about this "Equals" ad is much ado about nothing.

That's interesting Tom, and true - and there's all the stuff - direct dialogue - about sexual harassment in GoldenEye, the Maxwell joke in Tomorrow Never Dies (admittedly not socio/political really, but "of its time" shall we say), the Millenium Bug payoff in TWINE (however ill-advised), stem cell research and genetic cloning in DUD, the various references to Colombian drug lords in Licence to Kill, A View to a Kill and its snood abundance, Thatch and her All Bran in For Your Eyes Only - the Bond series is a chocknockery of bits and pieces of populist political thought; this is no different.

There is a difference between being topical and fundamentally changing the conventions of the character of Bond. In all of these cases, I felt that I was watching a Bond film and that I was watching an actor portray James Bond. I no longer have that feeling. The conventions were changed for the Craig Era, and I wish that had never happened.

I liked your comment about the "snood abundance" regarding A View to a Kill. You're right, I find the film very "Dynasty". The film is very "1980's"! That's one of its few redeeming qualities for me.

[jaguar007]

There is a difference between being topical and fundamentally changing the conventions of the character of Bond. In all of these cases, I felt that I was watching a Bond film and that I was watching an actor portray James Bond. I no longer have that feeling. The conventions were changed for the Craig Era, and I wish that had never happened.

I feel like the many of the fundamentals of the Bond character was changed once we entered the 70s. Bond became less tough and more of the spy who never gets a hair out of place. With Casino Royale I feel that the pretty/playboy Bond has gone out the window and the tough spy we had in the early films had returned, of course in a contemporary setting.

I admit I'm not as keen on QoS, and that is mainly due to its fast pace and editing, not Craig. As much as I love Roger Moore, I'm thankful to have a manly man back in the role of Bond