So.
A bunch of James Bond “fans” have decided to boycott the forthcoming Bond film “Casino Royale“.
Why? Has it been funded by terrorists, oil magnates, or Dubya[1]? Nope. Has there been gratuitous harm of animals in the making of the film? Nope. Have the filmmakers desecrated some kind of holy icon or religious place either in the making of the film or in the events depicted within? Not as far as I’m aware.
Why then?
Ah, yes, of course. They don’t like the choice of actor playing the lead role. Silly me. Wasn’t it obvious?
Note to these “Bond fans”: Who the fuck do you think you are? Get over yourselves! Would you rather have Roger Moore back? Stop your fucking whining and attempt to continue enjoying a film franchise that long ago descended into the Hollywood-ised sequence of explosions and car chases that even Pierce Brosnan couldn’t make good. Excuse me, did you see “Die Another Day”? It was bollocks, and I didn’t hear you getting all het up over the invisible fucking car!
Fuck off.
–c.
[1] Who is or course both a terrorist AND an oil magnate.
3 Comments
Hey! Watch it now! You know I have respect for you Clive, but I won’t stand idly by while you diss Roger Moore, the best Bond evar. Nobody else could pretend to ski in front of a blue screen with a hairdryer in his face like ol’ Rog.
I liked the invisible car ..
Bond jumped the shark years ago. The only reason that “Casino Royale” was never made as a “serious” Bond vehicle (forget the “comedy” film, which was only notable for it’s soundtrack)was because the first half of the book was about Bond’s card strategies, and the second half was a prolonged sequence where he is tortured bybeing strapped, naked, to a table and having his backside whipped to a pulp - something which it now seems that most British secret agents would actually pay good money for.
So, to be blunt (Anthony?), the first half of the book is unfilmable, whilst the second part was unfilmable, but they’ll probably get away with it these days.
Post a Comment