MGM says the next Bond within 3 years

13468913

Comments

  • edited March 2013 Posts: 6,601
    LOL, OF COURSE, RC7 and Skyfail, who never forgets to mention how much he likes him, while still - always - bashes him. So, no surprises here. I think, its clear, he was polite and gave the man his attention. So - what's to complain apart from just because...

    ..and RC7, as usual your choice of words is rather questionable - again, nothing new. You really don't get a grib, do you? But then, I don't post stuff for the likes of you, but for those, who might like to read those snippets and not use iot as vehicle for their WELL known dislike.

    Still, it reminds me, why its good to take a break from here.
  • edited March 2013 Posts: 498
    doubleoego wrote:
    Please, this isnt about being blindingly supportive if the guy it is what it is. He's not obligated to take pics just because he's Bond. So you think people on the street have ownership of the man? That's rubbish. Like every other human being he has a right to his own privacy and personal time and at least he was gracious enough to be polite about the situation. If this was a red carpet event and he turned up late and walked passed screaming fans into the cinema, yeah you'd have a point but I'm not buying this crap that because he's Bond or a famous actor he owes us his time. It's a childish way of thinking actually.

    Yes,
    That's his wish entirely,


    But the other Bond's wouldn't have done that. They haven't done so .
    They are just far too gregarious for that.
    Germanlady wrote:
    LOL, OF COURSE, RC7 and Skyfail, who never forgets to mention how much he likes him, while still - always - bashes him. So, no surprises here. I think, its clear, he was polite and gave the man his attention. So - what's to complain apart from just because...

    ..and RC7, as usual your choice of words is rather questionable - again, nothing new. You really don't get a grib, do you?
    Which reminds me, why its good to take a break from here.

    Ma'am ,
    I started loving the series only after Craig. I couldn't care less about the pre-Craig Bonds initially.

    I have come to respect RC7 because though he may come out a bit harsh, He bases his judgement rationally with an unbiased out look, Which is much more than what I can say for some .




  • edited March 2013 Posts: 6,601
    Good man, Skyfail, maybe TRY to take into consideration, that Pierces and more so the others time was less to the point of NO cell phones. So - these days, have your pic taken and you will find it all over the net. It was not like that even in Pierces time. So - you cannot compare as much as it makes you happy to do so. Would Pierce do it today being JB? Maybe, but maybe not.

    I think, important is, that you are not rude to fans, who are POLITE to you. He never is and wasn't in this case. But I am speaking against walls, AS USUAL, I suppose.

    As for RC7 - he is not only harsh, he is downright rude at times and tends to be insulting for the lack of expressing himself better. Not one to admire really.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Skyfail wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Please, this isnt about being blindingly supportive if the guy it is what it is. He's not obligated to take pics just because he's Bond. So you think people on the street have ownership of the man? That's rubbish. Like every other human being he has a right to his own privacy and personal time and at least he was gracious enough to be polite about the situation. If this was a red carpet event and he turned up late and walked passed screaming fans into the cinema, yeah you'd have a point but I'm not buying this crap that because he's Bond or a famous actor he owes us his time. It's a childish way of thinking actually.

    Yes,
    That's his wish entirely,


    But the other Bond's wouldn't have done that. They haven't done so .
    They are just far too gregarious for that.


    Other Bond's wouldn't have done that? Really? How do you know?

    There is something called free will, Craig didn't want to take the photo and he was polite. There was nothing wrong in the way the situation was dealt with from either side. He was not working, it was his free time, he had no obligation to do it.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    No they don't own him, but he has a responsibility when he takes on a role like Bond. If he's going to go out shopping in a public place then he has to expect a fan may shake his hand, ask for an autograph or want a photo taken. Private life is behind closed doors, you can't ask for privacy in public. @Germanlady, likewise. I wouldn't expect you to consider any opinion other than one which pertains Dan is untouchable. You're all so keen to fight his corner, like rats in a ditch fighting over some piss. Great actor, great Bond, but whatever we read, none of us know him and that includes his German stalker.
  • Posts: 6,601
    The man, who experienced it first hand says "He was gracious and kind and I felt a pang of guilt interrupting his privacy" Nuff said...
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Germanlady wrote:
    The man, who experienced it first hand says "He was gracious and kind and I felt a pang of guilt interrupting his privacy" Nuff said...

    Gracious and kind at having smoke blown up his arse but not enough to pose for one photo with a fan.
  • edited March 2013 Posts: 6,601
    I wish you a nice weekend, too. Do something for your blood pressure.
    I am out of here.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Germanlady wrote:
    I wish you a nice weekend, too. Do something for your blood pressure.
    I am out of here.

    My blood pressure is fine. I'm in Paris checking out some Bond sights. As they say 'don't start what you can't finish'. Have a good weekend.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited March 2013 Posts: 4,399
    to anyone here... lets say you become famous overnight, and all of a sudden the world of media is shoved into your face.. your being jetted from one side of the world to the other.. you practically go deaf from hundreds of people all shouting your name from only mere feet away.. your practically going blind from all the flash bulbs.. reports ask you stupid questions nonstop... paparazzi are hounding you everywhere you go....... so when you finally get a moment to yourself and you just want to go buy a burger, suddenly a dozen or more people jump right into your face and ask for pictures and autographs, pictures and autographs... you might be inclined to get a little annoyed and even turn a couple down if you weren't in the mood...

    most of us here will never know what that feeling is like - so naturally, we'd be all over it saying "i'd never turn this or that down. - and anyone who does is just a prick." ..... celebrities are human beings - and whether or not they've signed on to be James Bond or not, they are entitled to have a bit of privacy when they want it, not when we decide they can have it...

    i have no problems with the way Daniel has acted in previous articles, or even in @Germanlady 's story.. if he isn't a fan of taking pictures, then he isn't a fan of taking pictures - don't need to force him to take one.. i thought both Dan and the fan handled themselves with class and respect.. it just goes to show, if you treat someone with respect, you'll get it back.. the sense i got from that story is that Dan was genuine and polite, and respected the fan for not pressing the issue on taking a picture...

    i'm curious if Sir Sean had ever acted as "horrible" in public as people assume Daniel does..
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I think it's also fair to mention that it was Craig who also extended his hand, out for a handshake. As for Connery, as long as you're wearing something to do with golf, he'll probably invite you round for some scotch :-D
  • edited March 2013 Posts: 498

    Germanlady wrote:
    Good man, Skyfail, maybe TRY to take into consideration, that Pierces and more so the others time was less to the point of NO cell phones. So - these days, have your pic taken and you will find it all over the net. It was not like that even in Pierces time. So - you cannot compare as much as it makes you happy to do so.

    Ma'am ,
    Why would it make me happy to do so ?

    Its not about being on any 'side'
    Its about having a clear rational unbiased discussion, something which I am sad to say is not seen here.

    It saddens me to see clear video's and articles that presented but some fanboys just refusing to accept facts.

    And to clear your point , You have assumed the meeting with Pierce to happened a long time back just to justify Dan's action, which I may politely add comes across a bit biased ,That meeting with Pierce was not of the time of NO cell phones.
    In fact it just happened months back.

    I assume you may not believe me , which is quite alright. But I know you can get in touch with the person who did. On CBn you are quite an active poster, so you will be knowing Dustin. Ask him about his encounter with Pierce, He will gladly fill you on the details ;)

    Hope that clears things up :)
    Cheers!


    Oh and about RC7,
    I respect a harsh wiseman 10 folds more than I respect a kind foolish man.
  • edited March 2013 Posts: 498
    And one more thing , the reason I left CBn is because

    Questioning Skyfall is treated as if your Questioning the word of God.(except more harsher)

    To say those folks are 'biased' barely nicks the surface.
    But if people enjoy that kind of blind Skyfall love, who am I to judge :P
  • Posts: 7,653
    Connery is GOD
    Moore is the SAINT
    Lazenby the SMUCK
    Dalton the one that was ill TIMED
    Brosnan the STEEL that kept the franchise hot
    Craig is the CURRENT RULER

    Now hurry up and make the best 007 movie within three years that will be Craigs swansong. He deserves it and so do the fans. And make it a great actioner that is fun too, so give us a decent action director.
  • Posts: 498
    SaintMark wrote:
    And make it a great actioner that is fun too, so give us a decent action director.

    The MOST IMPORTANT point, in my books.
  • Posts: 2,107
    Two excellent movies is more like it. Five and then they can call it a day and take a break for 4-5 years and introduce the next actor.
  • edited March 2013 Posts: 2,081
    Excellent comments @doubleoego and @haserot.
    HASEROT wrote:
    --- i thought both Dan and the fan handled themselves with class and respect.. it just goes to show, if you treat someone with respect, you'll get it back.. the sense i got from that story is that Dan was genuine and polite, and respected the fan for not pressing the issue on taking a picture... ---

    Absolutely.

    I must say I understand perfectly Daniel (or anyone else) not wanting his pic taken at all times. It's how I'd feel, too. The idea that he should have no problem with it whenever he's outside his home is taking it pretty far. It seems like people don't realize that it's not just one fan, it's lots and lots of fans and non-fans alike (including paps), either asking for pics and/or autographs, or snapping or videoing away without asking, and then the pics and vids are on the internet, and so on. I know some people don't mind being public property like that, but some do and try to limit it, and it's their right.
    I find it weird that some people think that no matter how polite Daniel is, he's not actually polite at all since he's not doing what they require and expect. That's a do-as-I-say-or-else type of attitude. The fact is, he's not going around being rude to people, and obviously wasn't in that case, either. He even takes pics for fans himself at premieres, for instance, but when not at work, he shouldn't be required to. Besides, what exactly is the big deal about having your pic taken with a famous person - and then usually posting it on the internet? Why is it so important that if the famous person isn't co-operating he's deemed a jerk? Something to consider, perhaps... ;) I respect the fan in that story, obviously a gent and a true fan. (By true fan I mean a person who actually respects the person he is the fan of.)

    Skyfail wrote:

    And to clear your point , You have assumed the meeting with Pierce to happened a long time back just to justify Dan's action, which I may politely add comes across a bit biased ,That meeting with Pierce was not of the time of NO cell phones.
    In fact it just happened months back.

    I think the point was that when he was Bond everyone was not carrying a camera with them at all times.
    A decade after he was last starring as Bond? I doubt he gets the requests, not to mention harassment (people not bothering to ask) on a daily basis. Also, how about if Pierce likes having his picture taken - some people do - and therefore is delighted? Both approaches are fine.
    There is no need to "justify Dan's action" in any way. You write as if he did something unjustifiable in your opinion. He was polite and appreciative. The fan showed respect and he replied in kind.


  • I remember speaking to someone once who stated that it took him an hour to walk one and a half blocks because of everyone stopping him, wanting to talk to him and take pictures. Now imagine that happening all the time...so if you had an appointment to get to suddenly you're rude because you don't take the time to talk to every person who wants to stop you? Sorry I'm two hours late to pick up my daughter but the public needed me...yeesh. As Haserot said I certainly wouldn't begrudge someone a couple of minutes of "me time" on his own.

    Someone I worked with many years ago was friends with a hockey player who was INCREDIBLY polite to all his fans, always taking the time to speak to them, pose for pictures (not as common back then before cell phone cameras), and sign autographs - even when they interrupted him on a date with his wife or when he was in the middle of eating. One night they were out at a club having a drink, talking over relationship problems - the hockey player and his wife had had a huge fight and he needed to talk about it and blow off some steam. People came up to him asking for a picture or autograph even though he was visibly upset and sad (though far fewer than usual, most people could pick up on the vibe and left him alone sitting in the booth in the corner), and my coworker kept saying to them "I'm sorry, we're in the middle of a private conversation, another time, please". But there was this one guy who kept...well, "pestering them" is the only phrase to use. Finally the hockey player said very firmly and with a touch of impatience "Look, please stop bothering me. I've had a really bad day and I just want a quiet drink so I can talk about it with my friend. He's told you several times to leave us alone. Show some respect."

    Sure enough, a few days later on a call in show one caller talked about what a "dick" this guy was to his fans and how rude he was. Was it that same guy? A friend of his who heard an exaggerated version of what happened? Someone else from the bar? Who knows? But of course some other people jumped on the bandwagon and called in stating their stories of being "shunned" by him - one guy complained he saw him at the zoo with his son, and rather than turn around and wave at everyone (WTF?) he was being rude, just talking with his son and looking at the animals instead of the "fans" behind him.

    As my friend said, ask yourself this - have you ever been in a bad mood out in public? Have you ever been curt with someone, or worse, snapped at them if they were being stupid or impolite? Now imagine how this would be magnified if you were a celebrity, even if this happen only once a year. How many of us could be "on" all the time? We're all human and we all have moods.

    The idea that celebrities owe us to be at our disposal any time we see them is quite frankly not just selfish but also immature.
  • edited March 2013 Posts: 498
    Tuulia wrote:
    Skyfail wrote:

    And to clear your point , You have assumed the meeting with Pierce to happened a long time back just to justify Dan's action, which I may politely add comes across a bit biased ,That meeting with Pierce was not of the time of NO cell phones.
    In fact it just happened months back.

    I think the point was that when he was Bond everyone was not carrying a camera with them at all times.
    A decade after he was last starring as Bond? I doubt he gets the requests, not to mention harassment (people not bothering to ask) on a daily basis. Also, how about if Pierce likes having his picture taken - some people do - and therefore is delighted? Both approaches are fine.
    There is no need to "justify Dan's action" in any way. You write as if he did something unjustifiable in your opinion. He was polite and appreciative. The fan showed respect and he replied in kind.



    Did I say it was Unjustifiable ?

    The assumption of it being in the early late 90's or early 2000's was was used to justify Dan's action. I never said it was unjustifiable.

    I like how you tried to turn the tables with that :)

    Nevertheless English is a beautiful language ;)

    I have mentioned this in many a posts , I feel this whole argument is redundant as it doesn't mean Dan is bad in acting . Which he is amazing at.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Just watched Hanna again and if Wright gets the directors chair, we're going to get some awesome CQC.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    The incident where Dan is approached in Tom Ford, I think it was OTT to refuse the fan a photo. I don't understand why he would act in such a way considering the circumstances. As for the grocery store incident, the fan was obviously an idiot. You can't go around shoving cameras in people's faces. The problem is, Dan handles it all wrong. He could do with a lesson from Sir Roger, the man who can kill you with a line. He could be on YouTube delivering a razor sharp witticism in the direction of his 'fan', instead he's in the paper looking evermore miserable.
  • Posts: 498
    doubleoego wrote:
    Just watched Hanna again and if Wright gets the directors chair, we're going to get some awesome CQC.

    Haven't watched that ,
    Do hope you're right ;)

    Since the odds are with wright .






  • edited March 2013 Posts: 2,081
    Skyfail wrote:
    Tuulia wrote:
    Skyfail wrote:

    And to clear your point , You have assumed the meeting with Pierce to happened a long time back just to justify Dan's action, which I may politely add comes across a bit biased ,That meeting with Pierce was not of the time of NO cell phones.
    In fact it just happened months back.

    I think the point was that when he was Bond everyone was not carrying a camera with them at all times.
    A decade after he was last starring as Bond? I doubt he gets the requests, not to mention harassment (people not bothering to ask) on a daily basis. Also, how about if Pierce likes having his picture taken - some people do - and therefore is delighted? Both approaches are fine.
    There is no need to "justify Dan's action" in any way. You write as if he did something unjustifiable in your opinion. He was polite and appreciative. The fan showed respect and he replied in kind.



    Did I say it was Unjustifiable ?

    The assumption of it being in the early late 90's or early 2000's was was used to justify Dan's action. I never said it was unjustifiable.

    I like how you tried to turn the tables with that :)

    Nevertheless English is a beautiful language ;)

    I have mentioned this in many a posts , I feel this whole argument is redundant as it doesn't mean Dan is bad in acting . Which he is amazing at.

    Apologies for my English, then. The point I was trying to make was simply that there was nothing to "justify".

    The other issue was that I think you misunderstood the comment about Pierce.


  • Posts: 498
    Tuulia wrote:
    Skyfail wrote:
    Tuulia wrote:
    Skyfail wrote:

    And to clear your point , You have assumed the meeting with Pierce to happened a long time back just to justify Dan's action, which I may politely add comes across a bit biased ,That meeting with Pierce was not of the time of NO cell phones.
    In fact it just happened months back.

    I think the point was that when he was Bond everyone was not carrying a camera with them at all times.
    A decade after he was last starring as Bond? I doubt he gets the requests, not to mention harassment (people not bothering to ask) on a daily basis. Also, how about if Pierce likes having his picture taken - some people do - and therefore is delighted? Both approaches are fine.
    There is no need to "justify Dan's action" in any way. You write as if he did something unjustifiable in your opinion. He was polite and appreciative. The fan showed respect and he replied in kind.



    Did I say it was Unjustifiable ?

    The assumption of it being in the early late 90's or early 2000's was was used to justify Dan's action. I never said it was unjustifiable.

    I like how you tried to turn the tables with that :)

    Nevertheless English is a beautiful language ;)

    I have mentioned this in many a posts , I feel this whole argument is redundant as it doesn't mean Dan is bad in acting . Which he is amazing at.

    Apologies for my English, then. The point I was trying to make was simply that there was nothing to "justify".

    The other issue was that I think you misunderstood the comment about Pierce.


    lol! Not at all

    I meant that in English one word could be interpreted in different ways.
  • Posts: 6,601
    And which was the one sohard to understand? When they argument is redundant, WHY then are you here in the first place? Since All you are concerned about is his acting, why would you get into arguments about his personality? Rather odd, no?
  • Posts: 498
    Germanlady wrote:
    And which was the one sohard to understand? When they argument is redundant, WHY then are you here in the first place? Since All you are concerned about is his acting, why would you get into arguments about his personality? Rather odd, no?

    Yes, The argument is very redundant .
    I have mentioned it time and time again . Because solely on acting he is at a much higher position as compared to the other Bond's .

    But He might not be as accepted to his fame as say Roger or Pierce.
    But in the end its his choice and is none of our concern.

    When people idolise him and move into the realm of fantasies and distance themselves by facts believe what you see on screen is equivalent to what is outside, I stepped in to give a clear more concise view which a very few are giving.



    Yes-He is better than the other Bond's
    No- He is not as accepting to his fame as the others.

    What is so wrong with that ?
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    @Skyfail

    but being curt a couple times with fans does not make Dan the great satan of Bond ambassadorship..

    .. it's as though the intent behind your side of the argument is to say that Dan is a nasty and horrible human being..

    not saying that you truly feel that way, but thats the vibe in which i get when i read the comments..
  • Posts: 6,601
    Skyfail wrote:
    Germanlady wrote:
    And which was the one sohard to understand? When they argument is redundant, WHY then are you here in the first place? Since All you are concerned about is his acting, why would you get into arguments about his personality? Rather odd, no?

    Yes, The argument is very redundant .
    I have mentioned it time and time again . Because solely on acting he is at a much higher position as compared to the other Bond's .

    But He might not be as accepted to his fame as say Roger or Pierce.
    But in the end its his choice and is none of our concern.

    When people idolise him and move into the realm of fantasies and distance themselves by facts believe what you see on screen is equivalent to what is outside, I stepped in to give a clear more concise view which a very few are giving.

    Yes-He is better than the other Bond's
    No- He is not as accepting to his fame as the others.

    What is so wrong with that ?

    YOU are giving ME lectures about him? YOU stepped in? There are not enoug laughing smileys to tell how ridiculous that is.

  • Posts: 9,785
    BACK ON TOPIC

    I do think Bond 24 will be out next year with the director announced soon.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Upon seeing the high number of new posts in this thread I came in here expecting some exciting news on Bond 24, but what did I get: more arguing about Dan. Same old, same old. Take it somewhere else ladies and gents, this thread isn't the place for it.
Sign In or Register to comment.