Who cares, novelgays were originally upset they cast a Scottsman as 007. You only care about this change because it happened in your lifetime. As long as it's a white male it doesn't matter.
No I don't but I remember when people were triggered by Daniel Craig in 2006 and people are still triggered today after he is done with the role. It's all so tiring.
>defending this
https://www.starobserver.com.au/news/daniel-craig-reveals-why-he-kissed-rami-malek-and-prefers-going-to-gay-bars/206468
This doesn’t seem like a gay man, it seems like an ageing britpopper actor loudly signalling how zogged up he is. This seems like the last thing a closeted gay man would advertise about himself.
No I don't but I remember when people were triggered by Daniel Craig in 2006 and people are still triggered today after he is done with the role. It's all so tiring.
it's insane how fast the quality dropped even after casino. skyfall was somewhat tolerable but any plot thread concerning blofeld's and bond's secret family ties is utter shit. shit was just beyond trash
It is parroted as the best because the vast majority of people are bugmen who want fictional media to be realistic and serious because they have an inherently maladjusted view of life and entertainment. No fun or sincerity is allowed, only death and misery. Craig's casting is for demoralization. To turn the male idol that is James Bond into some ugly emasculated husk and just some murderer and not the fun, charming gentleman spy and hero we know him as.
They're not sincere. By virtue of them being embarrassed by the IP and character and making him unrecognisable. They hated the character and turned him into Jason Bourne then Bruce Wayne than Ethan Hunt then Tony Stark. It's so fricking insincere and dumb. The last movie killed this imposter in embarrassing fashion, at least.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Ok autist. Lean what insincere means and make another thread which you inevitably will. Until then, there's little point in arguing with dishonest arguments.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Watch these movies with your mind open without taking into account the zeitgeist and you'll see what I mean.
Insincere is dropping everything that made the franchise work and be popular and memorable and only have some bits here and there of faux respect to the franchise so idiots like you remain none the wiser. Which is the entire Craig era.
>Insincere is dropping everything that made the franchise work and be popular
No, this is not what insincere means. There's a number of adjectives that could fit here and this one doesn't.
And I don't know why you'd even bring popularity into it, given that the post 2005 movies are some of the highest grossing and most acclaimed in the franchise's history.
If that's true why didn't they stick with their approach and did endless member berries? If they're so much better than what came before? A low-rent Marvel movie could make a billion in that time, anon. It means nothing and you've debased yourself for bringing it up.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>It means nothing and you've debased yourself for bringing it up.
You brought it up in the first place, claiming they made a mistake by not going with whatever made the movies popular, even though some of them are quite literally more popular than what came before.
Your argumentation is shit.
3 months ago
Anonymous
They were popular in a capsule, not resilientily popular like the movies that came before. Their style and tone already dates these movies incredibly and you have the fact they make no sense if not viewed in order which is the exact opposite of why James Bond still exists as a character to this day. He's pure episodic pulp spy fiction.
The last few movies weren't really up to par. That being said, yeah, it's rather forced. The Bond franchise has had stinkers prior to this. They went woke before that too, hell, one of the movies had a literal troony in it.
Who cares, novelgays were originally upset they cast a Scottsman as 007. You only care about this change because it happened in your lifetime. As long as it's a white male it doesn't matter.
>defending this
https://www.starobserver.com.au/news/daniel-craig-reveals-why-he-kissed-rami-malek-and-prefers-going-to-gay-bars/206468
Anon I..
You also believe Taylor Swift has had a lot of boyfriends over the years and she's totally straight
Yes, he had kids in order to hide the fact that he's gay
A lot of gays actually do this. Look up Paul O'Grady
If by "a lot" you mean 0.1% of them, sure
how does one go from kate moss to that gobling and not necc himself?
This doesn’t seem like a gay man, it seems like an ageing britpopper actor loudly signalling how zogged up he is. This seems like the last thing a closeted gay man would advertise about himself.
Insane eye colour, wish I had similar
No I don't but I remember when people were triggered by Daniel Craig in 2006 and people are still triggered today after he is done with the role. It's all so tiring.
The only good movies in the series are like 2 from the 60s and the Timothy Dalton films from the '80s.
Casino and QoS were kino
Yeah
it's insane how fast the quality dropped even after casino. skyfall was somewhat tolerable but any plot thread concerning blofeld's and bond's secret family ties is utter shit. shit was just beyond trash
Casino and QoS can be tolerated but his last 3 are utter garbage.
Bond looking rougher suited the direction for CR. The problem is within 10 years he looked like a russian grandma.
Yeah, then they shoot some mediocre criminal drama and said it is the best movie in the series
It is parroted as the best because the vast majority of people are bugmen who want fictional media to be realistic and serious because they have an inherently maladjusted view of life and entertainment. No fun or sincerity is allowed, only death and misery. Craig's casting is for demoralization. To turn the male idol that is James Bond into some ugly emasculated husk and just some murderer and not the fun, charming gentleman spy and hero we know him as.
Go to bed, Joss Whedon
t. Bugman NPC
In fact Joss Whedon would praise such a movie as soulless and insincere as Casino Royale you dumb homosexual
I'm sure you would, Joss, I'm sure you would.
Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace are rife with Whedon-tier writing. Meds.
Ok moron
If anything, CraigBond movies are TOO sincere aka realistic, which can take away from the appeal of the fantasy. You're out of your element.
They're not sincere. By virtue of them being embarrassed by the IP and character and making him unrecognisable. They hated the character and turned him into Jason Bourne then Bruce Wayne than Ethan Hunt then Tony Stark. It's so fricking insincere and dumb. The last movie killed this imposter in embarrassing fashion, at least.
Ok autist. Lean what insincere means and make another thread which you inevitably will. Until then, there's little point in arguing with dishonest arguments.
Watch these movies with your mind open without taking into account the zeitgeist and you'll see what I mean.
Learn what insincere means, Adam West gay. I've seen your zoomer hands use this argument before and it almost never fits the context.
Insincere is dropping everything that made the franchise work and be popular and memorable and only have some bits here and there of faux respect to the franchise so idiots like you remain none the wiser. Which is the entire Craig era.
>Insincere is dropping everything that made the franchise work and be popular
No, this is not what insincere means. There's a number of adjectives that could fit here and this one doesn't.
And I don't know why you'd even bring popularity into it, given that the post 2005 movies are some of the highest grossing and most acclaimed in the franchise's history.
>bringing up reviews and BO
If that's true why didn't they stick with their approach and did endless member berries? If they're so much better than what came before? A low-rent Marvel movie could make a billion in that time, anon. It means nothing and you've debased yourself for bringing it up.
>It means nothing and you've debased yourself for bringing it up.
You brought it up in the first place, claiming they made a mistake by not going with whatever made the movies popular, even though some of them are quite literally more popular than what came before.
Your argumentation is shit.
They were popular in a capsule, not resilientily popular like the movies that came before. Their style and tone already dates these movies incredibly and you have the fact they make no sense if not viewed in order which is the exact opposite of why James Bond still exists as a character to this day. He's pure episodic pulp spy fiction.
Remember when some homosexual kept making these Craig seethe threads daily for months?
Probably some form of schizophrenia like all spammers.
a Russian *rent boy
I will never understand the hate towards graig
Closeted homosexuals mad they can't get hard to him.
I have nothing against graig, however craig is a massive homosexual.
The last few movies weren't really up to par. That being said, yeah, it's rather forced. The Bond franchise has had stinkers prior to this. They went woke before that too, hell, one of the movies had a literal troony in it.