PEOPLE WITH PROPRER PRIORITIES:Angry Bond Fans Threaten to Boycott Film

[Kerrytravelers]

Because, of all the injustices in the world, casting British actor Daniel Craig has to be up there with torture chambers led by Halliburton Contractors, lieing to the American people and outing CIA agents who disagree with your policies. I sure am glad these James Bond fans know when it's important to protest. :eyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_en_mo/bond_protest

Angry Bond Fans Threaten to Boycott Film

Tue Feb 21, 9:26 PM ET



NEW YORK - They're shaken, stirred and just plain angry. And several months late with their response. A group of James Bond fans have launched a Web site, http://www.craignotbond.com, to protest British actor Daniel Craig replacing Pierce Brosnan in the 007 film franchise, and boycott the upcoming Bond movie "Casino Royale."

>SNIP<

"EON Productions angered fans around the world when they fired Pierce Brosnan at the height of his popularity as Bond," said a statement on the site. "To add insult to injury, EON cast a short, blond, odd-looking Daniel Craig in the role of Bond."

"Craig, described by The New York Times as having a 'pale, flattened face and large, fleshy ears' is a terrible choice for Bond. If EON Productions and Sony Pictures will not accept they've made a big mistake, then Bond fans promise to boycott Casino Royale!"

>SNIP<

In its statement, the Web site claimed EON did not want to pay for Brosnan or other high-profile actors Hugh Jackman and Clive Owen as replacements.

http://www.craignotbond.com


Their website is a bit insulting. On the "Craig Look-Alikes," they take clips from his films (where you know the make-up artists and costumers can completly change your looks) and compare him to Gollum and others in an attempt to be funny. :eyes: Personally, I've seen Craig in several films and think he's a fine actor and not half bad looking, either.

[acmavm]

1. Oh frick. The 'next' Bond is not one of those issues that keeps

me awake at night. These people need to start thinking about the real world. It's a fictional character for goodness sake.

[slor]

2. He is a good actor...

I first saw him in "Enduring Love" and I enjoyed it very much. I will actually GO to see this film, since he is in it, and I have not watched a Bond film in years.

[Deep13]

3. I read about this on www.whogivesashit.com! nt

[nickinSTL]

4. these guys are idiots, IMO

I'm a Bond fan. Seen ALL of the movies (including, unfortunately, the spoof Casino Royale).

I'm not thrilled with some stuff I've heard about the upcoming movie, like no Q. But, I'll still see it. I don't quite know what to make of a blond Bond, either, but I'll give him a chance.

And, no, this is hardly the most important issue in the world, but give a f*ing break, people. It is ok to care about other things than JUST politics.

[Kerrytravelers]

9. Of course it's ok to care about things other than politics.

It's just funny to me that and actor playing james Bond is So important that it's on the fron of the Yahoo! news page and that people have a protest website. A lot of energy is being poored ito hating a casting choice.

[xultar]

5. I agree with Craignotbond. HE is a moon faced fleshy eared no

talent hack.

[mattclearing]

6. Craig will be the best Bond since Connery.

Bet on it.

[DS1]

7. eh, I guess that makes me "fleshy-eared"

I'm heartbroken :eyes:

[JackRiddler]

8. Don't be so sure this isn't part of the marketing...

If the anti-Craig group is not astroturf (a bogus grassroots front set up by the corporation itself), it still serves the film's promotion. People will go just because they ask, will Craig be bad or good? Every single idiot involved with this group is guaranteed to buy tickets, and likely to go more than once even if they hate it and only desire to get more fodder for posting angry reactions to Craig around the Web.

You can be certain this group already figures in the studio's marketing plan, wittingly or otherwise. Controversy is manna for films, Hollywood has always been grateful to exploit it. Consider the Jesus Trifecta of "Life of Bryan," "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "Passion of the Christ." These became "must see" movies because of the perception (right or wrong) that they were under attack by censoring forces.

Brokeback Mountain was aiming for the same effect, and almost missed, as the expected yahoo backlash almost entirely failed to appear. The promotional forces mobilized in advance for its defense heaved it up to success anyway, orgiastically congratulating themselves for supporting it even before its release. This boring standard Hollywood genre fare has nothing other than a twist (the doomed lovers are gay) that would have been progressive 20 years ago but is effectively regressive compared to the pioneering queer films that made it possible. But the planned effect of appearing controversial has made it a kind of required Oscar vote for the Academy.

Anyway, not to get too far afield: I guarantee you the studio itself either created the Craig group, is thrilled at its appearance, or (at a minimum) has already incorporated it into its marketing strategy.

[Kerrytravelers]

10. Very likely.

I had planned to see it because of Craig, not because I was astroturfed! :)