No Time To Die: Production Diary

123572574

Comments

  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited October 2015 Posts: 9,021
    Germanlady wrote: »

    Craig has yet to have a second movie that belongs to the group of the truly greats like GF FRWL OHMSS.
    CR is such a movie.

    In your mind. And financial sujccess does tell a story about audiences satisfied with a result. And before you say it, yes, that is even the case with movies, many would say stink. Obviously they found their audiences and in the end, tha is what counts. Many people seeing a film and enjoying it.

    The DC area had lots of that.

    You know that DAD sold more tickets than CR?

    Sorry box office does not make a movie automatically good.
    The Brosnan era had lots of that too.

    My point is the current era has yet to produce a second classic that will stand the test of decades passing and therefore will be considered in the heights of the ones I mentioned.

    SP could be that one.
  • Posts: 6,601
    Time will tell, yes.
  • bond_azoozbondbond_azoozbond Portland,OR
    Posts: 97
    If this happens it will be one of he firsts .. Connery first movies (DN,FRWL) , Lazenby only movie and Craigs CR .. A trend that always happens on the first movies and not the following.. Maybe because they dont care if it a classic as much as making it more big ..
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    The notion that a Craig critic must be a Brosnan fan is stupid and ridiculous and full of prejudice.

    How Craig's tenure will be seen in 15 years depends highly on how Spectre will be seen and a possible Bond 25.
    Had he stopped at SF it would be viewed as a mediocre legacy over all.

    Said like a true Brosnan fan. How can anyway take your taste an opinion seriously with comments like this. Even the Brosnan fans I know wouldn't defend DAD than then put down Craig's tenure.

    2wqsbbl.png
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe S.A.R.A.H.Moderator
    Posts: 10,563

    "- Who is the childish comment aimed at exactly? Could it be me? My opinion of Craig wasn't really formed until after i'd seen QOS. That means that when he was announced (10 years to the day I make this post), I didn't write him off. I saw two of his films before I decided he wasn't Bond for me, and a further one more before I decided that I didn't want to see any more of his films in the cinema".


    You made my point for me, you came on posting about how Craig should behave, and really you have your own perception of what Bond should be and Craig does not fit that therefore you used the recent comments to have a rant about Craig's behaviour. When really Craig's remarks were taken out of context, you say you did not let tabloids form your opinion. So you therefore agree the tabloids twisted the quotes to make them seem like he was being serious. In which case your original comments about Craig were wrong?

    My opinion on the Craig era goes beyond recent interviews. What he plays, and his films, just aren't my idea of Bond. Yes, I do think any Bond actor should conduct himself with a bit of class when promoting the films (iirc, Lazenby's contract even had stipulation on how to behave in public). But even if Daniel Craig wore a halo in interviews, I would still think the same way about his era.
    Based upon the popularity of Daniel as Bond based upon the Skyfall figures alone http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Skyfall#tab=summary

    There are very few who don't follow your views on Craig as Bond.

    I can't comment on that, as I don't speak for other fans, I just give my personal opinion, as everyone else does.
    You say "I saw two of his films before I decided he wasn't Bond for me" what was not for you, that it was not more of the same?

    I don't get what you mean by more of the same, but I will attempt to answer anyway. When I mean that he isn't for me, I mean that his take on Bond and his films are not my cup of tea. To me, his take on Bond is nothing more than a copy of Jason Bourne. But that is my opinion, and many here will disagree. There has also been too greater shift into drama, and recently Bond's past. Again, that is just my opinion.
    Then you say " Good or bad, whatever else they may be, Craig's films are not spy thrillers. They are more like an awkward marriage of action films and dramas"

    Most media outlets, critics and IMDB manage to list the film as Action, Adventure, Thrillers. And personally I think 1. Dan's Bond films have been full of action, there have been adventures across the globe and have thrilled the audiences who turned up in their millions to see them. (I will give you QOS for some part, but considering the writer strike, studio problems and going over budget that hampered the film this was more Marc Fosters failings and considering all of that Daniel still gave a great performance.

    That is a matter of perspective, not every Bond has to be a spy thriller, but in my opinion, there have only been a handful of spy thriller Bonds in the whole series, the last being TLD.
    You are the minority, and the films will follow the trends of their times and the other films drawing audiences that influence the future films. I.E CR - Bourne, Skyfall - The Dark Knight Rises. Craig I do not feel will be truly appreciated until years from now, as they are timeless story telling and the style and have been made with more care and though that anything that came through the Dalton and Brosnan era,

    I don't have a crystal ball, so I won't post exactly what the future holds for Craig. But I will say that Dalton and Brosnan made Bond films. They might not all have been good, but they still feel like Bond films.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    The notion that a Craig critic must be a Brosnan fan is stupid and ridiculous and full of prejudice.

    How Craig's tenure will be seen in 15 years depends highly on how Spectre will be seen and a possible Bond 25.
    Had he stopped at SF it would be viewed as a mediocre legacy over all.

    Said like a true Brosnan fan. How can anyway take your taste an opinion seriously with comments like this. Even the Brosnan fans I know wouldn't defend DAD than then put down Craig's tenure.

    2wqsbbl.png

    You're getting boring.
    Obviously one of those fanatics that have to put down anything questioning their Saint.

    My favourite by far is Dalton by the way.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138

    "- Who is the childish comment aimed at exactly? Could it be me? My opinion of Craig wasn't really formed until after i'd seen QOS. That means that when he was announced (10 years to the day I make this post), I didn't write him off. I saw two of his films before I decided he wasn't Bond for me, and a further one more before I decided that I didn't want to see any more of his films in the cinema".


    You made my point for me, you came on posting about how Craig should behave, and really you have your own perception of what Bond should be and Craig does not fit that therefore you used the recent comments to have a rant about Craig's behaviour. When really Craig's remarks were taken out of context, you say you did not let tabloids form your opinion. So you therefore agree the tabloids twisted the quotes to make them seem like he was being serious. In which case your original comments about Craig were wrong?

    My opinion on the Craig era goes beyond recent interviews. What he plays, and his films, just aren't my idea of Bond. Yes, I do think any Bond actor should conduct himself with a bit of class when promoting the films (iirc, Lazenby's contract even had stipulation on how to behave in public). But even if Daniel Craig wore a halo in interviews, I would still think the same way about his era.
    Based upon the popularity of Daniel as Bond based upon the Skyfall figures alone http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Skyfall#tab=summary

    There are very few who don't follow your views on Craig as Bond.

    I can't comment on that, as I don't speak for other fans, I just give my personal opinion, as everyone else does.
    You say "I saw two of his films before I decided he wasn't Bond for me" what was not for you, that it was not more of the same?

    I don't get what you mean by more of the same, but I will attempt to answer anyway. When I mean that he isn't for me, I mean that his take on Bond and his films are not my cup of tea. To me, his take on Bond is nothing more than a copy of Jason Bourne. But that is my opinion, and many here will disagree. There has also been too greater shift into drama, and recently Bond's past. Again, that is just my opinion.
    Then you say " Good or bad, whatever else they may be, Craig's films are not spy thrillers. They are more like an awkward marriage of action films and dramas"

    Most media outlets, critics and IMDB manage to list the film as Action, Adventure, Thrillers. And personally I think 1. Dan's Bond films have been full of action, there have been adventures across the globe and have thrilled the audiences who turned up in their millions to see them. (I will give you QOS for some part, but considering the writer strike, studio problems and going over budget that hampered the film this was more Marc Fosters failings and considering all of that Daniel still gave a great performance.

    That is a matter of perspective, not every Bond has to be a spy thriller, but in my opinion, there have only been a handful of spy thriller Bonds in the whole series, the last being TLD.
    You are the minority, and the films will follow the trends of their times and the other films drawing audiences that influence the future films. I.E CR - Bourne, Skyfall - The Dark Knight Rises. Craig I do not feel will be truly appreciated until years from now, as they are timeless story telling and the style and have been made with more care and though that anything that came through the Dalton and Brosnan era,

    I don't have a crystal ball, so I won't post exactly what the future holds for Craig. But I will say that Dalton and Brosnan made Bond films. They might not all have been good, but they still feel like Bond films.

    Last time I Checked Daniel Craig was making Bond Films, and they still felt like watching Bond films. Maybe we should get Daniel to die his hair for you and ski on Cello?
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 9,675
    NicNac wrote: »
    The following thread has been closed, and we can continue debating will he/won't he in this thread. Many thanks.
    http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/12987/daniel-craig-says-he-doesn-t-want-to-do-another-bond-spectre-may-be-his-last#latest
    I'm not sure if this is the right thread though. If the matter of Daniel Craig returning or not is an ongoing debate, shouldn't we devote a separate thread for that?
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 2,358
    The notion that a Craig critic must be a Brosnan fan is stupid and ridiculous and full of prejudice.

    How Craig's tenure will be seen in 15 years depends highly on how Spectre will be seen and a possible Bond 25.
    Had he stopped at SF it would be viewed as a mediocre legacy over all.

    Said like a true Brosnan fan. How can anyway take your taste an opinion seriously with comments like this. Even the Brosnan fans I know wouldn't defend DAD than then put down Craig's tenure.

    2wqsbbl.png

    Why would you use Internet Explorer?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 6,980
    CR is overrated, QoS is underated, and SF has the reputation it deserves. Now please, let's get back to the discussion at hand, instead of worrying who is better Craig or Brosnan. They are both worthy actors for the role.

    I prefer Brosnan, feel he wasn't given the chance to shine. If Brosnan was given material like CR, he would've blown Craig out of the water, I don't care what the Craig apologists say.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf England
    Posts: 3,829
    Sun glasses look odd.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Thunderfinger Wane Museum
    Posts: 33,390
    First this

    Now please, let's get back to the discussion at hand, instead of worrying who is better Craig or Brosnan. They are both worthy actors for the role.

    Then this

    I prefer Brosnan, feel he wasn't given the chance to shine. If Brosnan was given material like CR, he would've blown Craig out of the water, I don't care what the Craig apologists say.

  • suavejmfsuavejmf England
    edited October 2015 Posts: 3,829
    Nope. Craig is a much better actor than Brosnan. Craig is a star and an actor. Brosnan is just a classic leading man with limited acting prowess. Both have presence.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    First this

    Now please, let's get back to the discussion at hand, instead of worrying who is better Craig or Brosnan. They are both worthy actors for the role.

    Then this

    I prefer Brosnan, feel he wasn't given the chance to shine. If Brosnan was given material like CR, he would've blown Craig out of the water, I don't care what the Craig apologists say.

    First this:

    I prefer Brosnan, feel he wasn't given the chance to shine. If Brosnan was given material like CR, he would've blown Craig out of the water, I don't care what the Craig apologists say.

    Then this:

    Truer words were never spoken.



    Take That!...or a-ha!!...or Duran Duran!
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Walecs wrote: »
    The notion that a Craig critic must be a Brosnan fan is stupid and ridiculous and full of prejudice.

    How Craig's tenure will be seen in 15 years depends highly on how Spectre will be seen and a possible Bond 25.
    Had he stopped at SF it would be viewed as a mediocre legacy over all.

    Said like a true Brosnan fan. How can anyway take your taste an opinion seriously with comments like this. Even the Brosnan fans I know wouldn't defend DAD than then put down Craig's tenure.

    2wqsbbl.png

    Why would you use Internet Explorer?

    The company computer not mine, I have no say.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I thought he was given his chance (with a plot very much like SF actually). It was called TWINE.

    Words cannot describe my disappointment with that film. Mediocre is a compliment.

    He didn't do himself any favours with his dramatic performance there imho. In a way, it may have necessitated DAD, because EON perhaps realized the limitations of their man and decided to 'ham' it up for the next one.
    ---

    RE: DC - see, he's not uttering profanities in that clip above, so he knows how to keep it together when he has to.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 2,358
    Walecs wrote: »
    The notion that a Craig critic must be a Brosnan fan is stupid and ridiculous and full of prejudice.

    How Craig's tenure will be seen in 15 years depends highly on how Spectre will be seen and a possible Bond 25.
    Had he stopped at SF it would be viewed as a mediocre legacy over all.

    Said like a true Brosnan fan. How can anyway take your taste an opinion seriously with comments like this. Even the Brosnan fans I know wouldn't defend DAD than then put down Craig's tenure.

    2wqsbbl.png

    Why would you use Internet Explorer?

    The company computer not mine, I have no say.

    I see, my simpathy then.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    CR is overrated, QoS is underated, and SF has the reputation it deserves. Now please, let's get back to the discussion at hand, instead of worrying who is better Craig or Brosnan. They are both worthy actors for the role.

    I prefer Brosnan, feel he wasn't given the chance to shine. If Brosnan was given material like CR, he would've blown Craig out of the water, I don't care what the Craig apologists say.

    Goldeneye was directed by the same mam as CR. Had one of the best original non Fleming scripts in the franchise. His tenure did not encounter studio issues until after his last film, Brosnan simply did not say I want it done this way or that way he turned up read a script looked cool and went home. He says himself he wishes he had spoken up and done things differently, that he remembers Goldeneye the rest is a blur...Craig the polar opposite threw himself in to it. He used his influence to draw directors, actors he wanted it done right or not at all. I dont believe Brosnan was given a lesser opportunity than Craig and answer me this why is it Sean Bean's performance puts Brosnans to shame? Bean blows him out the water. Bean should have been Bond instead.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    CR is overrated, QoS is underated, and SF has the reputation it deserves. Now please, let's get back to the discussion at hand, instead of worrying who is better Craig or Brosnan. They are both worthy actors for the role.

    I prefer Brosnan, feel he wasn't given the chance to shine. If Brosnan was given material like CR, he would've blown Craig out of the water, I don't care what the Craig apologists say.

    Sarcasm? Not sure if serious.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Thunderfinger Wane Museum
    Posts: 33,390
    Bean should have been Bond instead.

    No, Mr Bean. I expect you to die.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    bondjames wrote: »
    I thought he was given his chance (with a plot very much like SF actually). It was called TWINE.

    Words cannot describe my disappointment with that film. Mediocre is a compliment.

    He didn't do himself any favours with his dramatic performance there imho. In a way, it may have necessitated DAD, because EON perhaps realized the limitations of their man and decided to 'ham' it up for the next one.

    I was very disappointed with TWINE too back then and still find it one of the weakest of the franchise.
    But Brosnan's performance had nothing to do, in fact it's the only thing (besides the PTS) that I really find terrific.
    Apted failed miserably with TWINE, he clearly was wrong for Bond. And the script...well...typical P+W level.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 6,980
    doubleoego wrote: »
    CR is overrated, QoS is underated, and SF has the reputation it deserves. Now please, let's get back to the discussion at hand, instead of worrying who is better Craig or Brosnan. They are both worthy actors for the role.

    I prefer Brosnan, feel he wasn't given the chance to shine. If Brosnan was given material like CR, he would've blown Craig out of the water, I don't care what the Craig apologists say.

    Sarcasm? Not sure if serious.

    What do you mean? What about?
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe S.A.R.A.H.Moderator
    edited October 2015 Posts: 10,563

    "- Who is the childish comment aimed at exactly? Could it be me? My opinion of Craig wasn't really formed until after i'd seen QOS. That means that when he was announced (10 years to the day I make this post), I didn't write him off. I saw two of his films before I decided he wasn't Bond for me, and a further one more before I decided that I didn't want to see any more of his films in the cinema".


    You made my point for me, you came on posting about how Craig should behave, and really you have your own perception of what Bond should be and Craig does not fit that therefore you used the recent comments to have a rant about Craig's behaviour. When really Craig's remarks were taken out of context, you say you did not let tabloids form your opinion. So you therefore agree the tabloids twisted the quotes to make them seem like he was being serious. In which case your original comments about Craig were wrong?

    My opinion on the Craig era goes beyond recent interviews. What he plays, and his films, just aren't my idea of Bond. Yes, I do think any Bond actor should conduct himself with a bit of class when promoting the films (iirc, Lazenby's contract even had stipulation on how to behave in public). But even if Daniel Craig wore a halo in interviews, I would still think the same way about his era.
    Based upon the popularity of Daniel as Bond based upon the Skyfall figures alone http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Skyfall#tab=summary

    There are very few who don't follow your views on Craig as Bond.

    I can't comment on that, as I don't speak for other fans, I just give my personal opinion, as everyone else does.
    You say "I saw two of his films before I decided he wasn't Bond for me" what was not for you, that it was not more of the same?

    I don't get what you mean by more of the same, but I will attempt to answer anyway. When I mean that he isn't for me, I mean that his take on Bond and his films are not my cup of tea. To me, his take on Bond is nothing more than a copy of Jason Bourne. But that is my opinion, and many here will disagree. There has also been too greater shift into drama, and recently Bond's past. Again, that is just my opinion.
    Then you say " Good or bad, whatever else they may be, Craig's films are not spy thrillers. They are more like an awkward marriage of action films and dramas"

    Most media outlets, critics and IMDB manage to list the film as Action, Adventure, Thrillers. And personally I think 1. Dan's Bond films have been full of action, there have been adventures across the globe and have thrilled the audiences who turned up in their millions to see them. (I will give you QOS for some part, but considering the writer strike, studio problems and going over budget that hampered the film this was more Marc Fosters failings and considering all of that Daniel still gave a great performance.

    That is a matter of perspective, not every Bond has to be a spy thriller, but in my opinion, there have only been a handful of spy thriller Bonds in the whole series, the last being TLD.
    You are the minority, and the films will follow the trends of their times and the other films drawing audiences that influence the future films. I.E CR - Bourne, Skyfall - The Dark Knight Rises. Craig I do not feel will be truly appreciated until years from now, as they are timeless story telling and the style and have been made with more care and though that anything that came through the Dalton and Brosnan era,

    I don't have a crystal ball, so I won't post exactly what the future holds for Craig. But I will say that Dalton and Brosnan made Bond films. They might not all have been good, but they still feel like Bond films.

    Last time I Checked Daniel Craig was making Bond Films, and they still felt like watching Bond films. Maybe we should get Daniel to die his hair for you and ski on Cello?

    Firstly, that's a matter of opinion. And secondly.... what on earth are you on about? I said in my last post in the other thread, which I asume you read, as you quoted it, but in case you didn't bother reading it, i'll quote it here:
    I wrote:
    I don't like Craig's era, but if his successor were blonde, I would him the same chance(s) that I gave Craig. I'm not as rigid on the hair colour. So long as it isn't blue or green (or something like that), I don't really care whether the next Bond has black, brown, blonde or ginger hair.

    See that, the part in bold? I'll say it again, I don't care that Craig is blonde. If his successor is blonde, I will give him the same chances that I will give an actor with black, brown or ginger hair.

    If you don't like people complaining about Craig's hair colour, then I strongly suggest you go and be snarky to them, not me.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138

    "- Who is the childish comment aimed at exactly? Could it be me? My opinion of Craig wasn't really formed until after i'd seen QOS. That means that when he was announced (10 years to the day I make this post), I didn't write him off. I saw two of his films before I decided he wasn't Bond for me, and a further one more before I decided that I didn't want to see any more of his films in the cinema".


    You made my point for me, you came on posting about how Craig should behave, and really you have your own perception of what Bond should be and Craig does not fit that therefore you used the recent comments to have a rant about Craig's behaviour. When really Craig's remarks were taken out of context, you say you did not let tabloids form your opinion. So you therefore agree the tabloids twisted the quotes to make them seem like he was being serious. In which case your original comments about Craig were wrong?

    My opinion on the Craig era goes beyond recent interviews. What he plays, and his films, just aren't my idea of Bond. Yes, I do think any Bond actor should conduct himself with a bit of class when promoting the films (iirc, Lazenby's contract even had stipulation on how to behave in public). But even if Daniel Craig wore a halo in interviews, I would still think the same way about his era.
    Based upon the popularity of Daniel as Bond based upon the Skyfall figures alone http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Skyfall#tab=summary

    There are very few who don't follow your views on Craig as Bond.

    I can't comment on that, as I don't speak for other fans, I just give my personal opinion, as everyone else does.
    You say "I saw two of his films before I decided he wasn't Bond for me" what was not for you, that it was not more of the same?

    I don't get what you mean by more of the same, but I will attempt to answer anyway. When I mean that he isn't for me, I mean that his take on Bond and his films are not my cup of tea. To me, his take on Bond is nothing more than a copy of Jason Bourne. But that is my opinion, and many here will disagree. There has also been too greater shift into drama, and recently Bond's past. Again, that is just my opinion.
    Then you say " Good or bad, whatever else they may be, Craig's films are not spy thrillers. They are more like an awkward marriage of action films and dramas"

    Most media outlets, critics and IMDB manage to list the film as Action, Adventure, Thrillers. And personally I think 1. Dan's Bond films have been full of action, there have been adventures across the globe and have thrilled the audiences who turned up in their millions to see them. (I will give you QOS for some part, but considering the writer strike, studio problems and going over budget that hampered the film this was more Marc Fosters failings and considering all of that Daniel still gave a great performance.

    That is a matter of perspective, not every Bond has to be a spy thriller, but in my opinion, there have only been a handful of spy thriller Bonds in the whole series, the last being TLD.
    You are the minority, and the films will follow the trends of their times and the other films drawing audiences that influence the future films. I.E CR - Bourne, Skyfall - The Dark Knight Rises. Craig I do not feel will be truly appreciated until years from now, as they are timeless story telling and the style and have been made with more care and though that anything that came through the Dalton and Brosnan era,

    I don't have a crystal ball, so I won't post exactly what the future holds for Craig. But I will say that Dalton and Brosnan made Bond films. They might not all have been good, but they still feel like Bond films.

    Last time I Checked Daniel Craig was making Bond Films, and they still felt like watching Bond films. Maybe we should get Daniel to die his hair for you and ski on Cello?

    Firstly, that's a matter of opinion. And secondly.... what on earth are you on about? I said in my last post in the other thread, which I asume you read, as you quoted it, but in case you didn't bother reading it, i'll quote it here:
    I wrote:
    I don't like Craig's era, but if his successor were blonde, I would him the same chance(s) that I gave Craig. I'm not as rigid on the hair colour. So long as it isn't blue or green (or something like that), I don't really care whether the next Bond has black, brown, blonde or ginger hair.

    See that, the part in bold? I'll say it again, I don't care that Craig is blonde. If his successor is blonde, I will give him the same chances that I will give an actor with black, brown or ginger hair.

    If you don't like people complaining about Craig's hair colour, then I strongly suggest you go and be snarky to them, not me.

    No I saw it and thought life is just too short.
  • Posts: 2,102
    Brosnan a better actor than Craig?????? Jesus wept!
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    edited October 2015 Posts: 6,980
    I can't believe people want Craig to return, he looks like a raisin as it is...
  • Posts: 2,102
    Craig for Bond 25, 26, and 27!!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Thunderfinger Wane Museum
    Posts: 33,390
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Craig for Bond 25, 26, and 27!!
    And Mendes4Lyfe.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,021
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Craig for Bond 25, 26, and 27!!

    That's not enough, I say 28 too so Craig has done more than Connery, ha!
    After all there can't be enough technical arguments to praise him, ho!
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Thunderfinger Wane Museum
    Posts: 33,390
    In all seriousness, Craig should definitely do B25 and that will be a perfect run for him.
Sign In or Register to comment.