Where does Bond go after Craig?

1540541543545546571

Comments

  • peter wrote: »
    I personally enjoy the latter novels more than the earlier ones-- Moonraker being the exception.

    I should have been clearer in my statement: I didn't say Craig injected more humanity in QoS compared with LALD, but instead, I said he was more like the character from the first two novels, but injected more humanity especially as he fell in love with Vesper (and perhaps I should have made it more clear, specific to CR the film).

    I also said whatever was planted in the earlier books bloomed by the end, because I do find Fleming improved more as a writer, and with that, he added layers onto the man he created in CR.

    Perhaps my use of paper thin was too much, but there's no doubt in my mind that I'm reading a more fleshed out character by the latter books.

    And when I saw SF and NTTD I'm seeing a lot of the latter Fleming-Bond in Craig's performance (as I also see a lot of the earlier Fleming-Bond in Craig's CR and QoS).

    I think at this point it's just preference: you enjoy the later novels, I enjoy the earlier ones. But one thing I think that is key is the progression. In OHMSS, it's almost impossible to think of the same man in the same casino 10 years earlier. Bond thinks this himself. In some respects he is a shadow of the man he was before, in some he clears his juvenile counterpart. Ultimately, he is worse 00 but a better man. But one thing I think is missing in the films is the shift from great 00 to fuller man. I suppose this can be easily put to the QOS-SF gap where maybe one or two adventures should occur.
    007HallY wrote: »
    I don't think Bond is a paper-thin character in CR-MR. That description feels unfair to me as we get a lot about Bond that we recognise today: his care, loyalty and dedication to friends, the job and women. There is a certain bit a humour too that we can see. I don't see the man flesh and blood in TMWTGG: in fact he feels less realised a character than before.

    But ultimately, I want to challenge the assertion that Bond is a "fully realised" character by the end and is "paper thin" at the start. Rather, we see a progression of character where Bond's loyalty drops and his doubts rise, as is natural with age. With Dalton, Connery and Craig, (often the most Fleming Bonds) we did not get the progression properly.

    Also: Craig does not inject more humanity in QOS than Bond had in LALD. LALD has Bond crying a full barrage of tears, mourning Felix's pain, and him having to decide to kill Solitaire to save her pain. Maybe Craig has more humanity in CR (he could hardly do a hardened sexist) but he doesn't have the puppy-dog like attraction that the novel Bond has. Bond then asks to marry Vesper, saying he wants her. Vesper replies that she wants dinner, and Bond goes and gets it.

    There's character Bond found in the earlier novels, and I don't think it's fair to reduce this to overly praise the later novels

    There’s definitely a development. I wouldn’t say Bond in CR is paper thin, but he does kind of go full circle in terms of his coldness, and the character isn’t quite as vividly written as he is later on for me. I actually think his relationship with Vesper is better handled in the film. As you said, Bond kind of gets a puppy dog attraction to her likely due to the shock of his torture/Le Chiffre’s talk about the ‘red Indians’ causing him to become disillusioned with the spy game/want an out. The book veers on melodrama during the latter portion (by the way that’s not a criticism, just a heightened stylistic choice Fleming runs with) which culminates in the tragedy of Vesper's suicide. It’s a great novel, but I’d honestly say the relationship between Bond and Case in DAF is one I find much more believably written. It just happens to be in a much more pulpy novel.

    I kind of see what you mean about TMWTGG. Ideally if Fleming had done more drafts Bond’s uncertainty/hesitation about killing Scaramanga would have been ironed out more in connection with his ordeal/the idea he might not be an effective agent anymore. But I do like the ideas there, slightly underdeveloped in that particular novel as they are, and the last chapter is quite well written.

    There's a development, but their is also a loss. Ultimately there's a change but I don't think it lends itself to being better or fuller than the earlier novels. Better for telling their respective stories, sure. James Bond lends to be interesting and full character through his work as a dedicated professional with odd quirks and a sense of adventure in the early novels.

    And then slowly he becomes a full and interesting character through him becoming a less dedicated professional who no longer finds fun in his habits like womanising (and he settles down). Instead he sees his job as just a beat-down. And we see him as a broken man who has spent the better part of his life being disposable. And he is sentimental.
  • Posts: 3,211
    peter wrote: »
    I personally enjoy the latter novels more than the earlier ones-- Moonraker being the exception.

    I should have been clearer in my statement: I didn't say Craig injected more humanity in QoS compared with LALD, but instead, I said he was more like the character from the first two novels, but injected more humanity especially as he fell in love with Vesper (and perhaps I should have made it more clear, specific to CR the film).

    I also said whatever was planted in the earlier books bloomed by the end, because I do find Fleming improved more as a writer, and with that, he added layers onto the man he created in CR.

    Perhaps my use of paper thin was too much, but there's no doubt in my mind that I'm reading a more fleshed out character by the latter books.

    And when I saw SF and NTTD I'm seeing a lot of the latter Fleming-Bond in Craig's performance (as I also see a lot of the earlier Fleming-Bond in Craig's CR and QoS).

    I think at this point it's just preference: you enjoy the later novels, I enjoy the earlier ones. But one thing I think that is key is the progression. In OHMSS, it's almost impossible to think of the same man in the same casino 10 years earlier. Bond thinks this himself. In some respects he is a shadow of the man he was before, in some he clears his juvenile counterpart. Ultimately, he is worse 00 but a better man. But one thing I think is missing in the films is the shift from great 00 to fuller man. I suppose this can be easily put to the QOS-SF gap where maybe one or two adventures should occur.
    007HallY wrote: »
    I don't think Bond is a paper-thin character in CR-MR. That description feels unfair to me as we get a lot about Bond that we recognise today: his care, loyalty and dedication to friends, the job and women. There is a certain bit a humour too that we can see. I don't see the man flesh and blood in TMWTGG: in fact he feels less realised a character than before.

    But ultimately, I want to challenge the assertion that Bond is a "fully realised" character by the end and is "paper thin" at the start. Rather, we see a progression of character where Bond's loyalty drops and his doubts rise, as is natural with age. With Dalton, Connery and Craig, (often the most Fleming Bonds) we did not get the progression properly.

    Also: Craig does not inject more humanity in QOS than Bond had in LALD. LALD has Bond crying a full barrage of tears, mourning Felix's pain, and him having to decide to kill Solitaire to save her pain. Maybe Craig has more humanity in CR (he could hardly do a hardened sexist) but he doesn't have the puppy-dog like attraction that the novel Bond has. Bond then asks to marry Vesper, saying he wants her. Vesper replies that she wants dinner, and Bond goes and gets it.

    There's character Bond found in the earlier novels, and I don't think it's fair to reduce this to overly praise the later novels

    There’s definitely a development. I wouldn’t say Bond in CR is paper thin, but he does kind of go full circle in terms of his coldness, and the character isn’t quite as vividly written as he is later on for me. I actually think his relationship with Vesper is better handled in the film. As you said, Bond kind of gets a puppy dog attraction to her likely due to the shock of his torture/Le Chiffre’s talk about the ‘red Indians’ causing him to become disillusioned with the spy game/want an out. The book veers on melodrama during the latter portion (by the way that’s not a criticism, just a heightened stylistic choice Fleming runs with) which culminates in the tragedy of Vesper's suicide. It’s a great novel, but I’d honestly say the relationship between Bond and Case in DAF is one I find much more believably written. It just happens to be in a much more pulpy novel.

    I kind of see what you mean about TMWTGG. Ideally if Fleming had done more drafts Bond’s uncertainty/hesitation about killing Scaramanga would have been ironed out more in connection with his ordeal/the idea he might not be an effective agent anymore. But I do like the ideas there, slightly underdeveloped in that particular novel as they are, and the last chapter is quite well written.

    There's a development, but their is also a loss. Ultimately there's a change but I don't think it lends itself to being better or fuller than the earlier novels. Better for telling their respective stories, sure. James Bond lends to be interesting and full character through his work as a dedicated professional with odd quirks and a sense of adventure in the early novels.

    And then slowly he becomes a full and interesting character through him becoming a less dedicated professional who no longer finds fun in his habits like womanising (and he settles down). Instead he sees his job as just a beat-down. And we see him as a broken man who has spent the better part of his life being disposable. And he is sentimental.

    I think there’s an extra step in there by the end of TMWTGG with Bond almost coming to terms about being a 00/what his life will look like for the foreseeable future. But yeah, Bond’s burn out becomes more apparent as the series goes on and we see it explored.

    It’s probably just a personal preference, but I think Fleming simply fleshed out little bits of his character and wrote him better by MR. I think sometimes in CR’s first half he’s a bit too much of a bastard (the outburst about a woman working with him is a bit odd even in the context of the novel/what we see later with the character when he has to work alongside them) and his sudden cynicism and his falling for Vesper feels ever so slightly left field (at least compared to some of his other relationships/arcs in the books). In MR he’s still a dedicated professional - seemingly the best shot and gambler in the service - but Fleming humanises him by showing us a bit of his daily life and hints at his boredom in between assignments. We see him taking more risks on the fly, which is something I associate with the character, and he even has moments of humour which actually convey stuff about his character (ie. there’s the quip he has about there already being blood on his hands when he’s picking flowers with Gala, and when he talks about lighting a last cigarette and standing under the rocket). I think his relationship with Brand feels a bit more organic too.
  • edited May 20 Posts: 1,034
    Daddy Bond is too much, I guess. It's too ordinary.

    Maybe it needs an exotic twist, like YOLT.

    I'm very stuffy about these boundaries. I think the cinematic Bond should never had had a child, or died, simply because Fleming's Bond never did.
    And yes, I know that's a preposterous thing to say when the cinematic Bond has done so much that Fleming's Bond hasn't done anyway. But I didn't mind that cinema Bond went into space, and I didn't mind that he went to Cambridge instead of Eton, and I didn't mind (too much) that he had blonde hair now and then.
    But making him a caring family man all of a sudden, then killing him off an hour later in the same film, was a little too much for me.
    I don't have much faith that the current team behind Bond will deliver a Bond film that my old-fashioned, traditionalist tastes will enjoy. Not after that last hour of NTTD.
    But as I keep saying, I really hope I'm wrong.
  • Posts: 1,750
    Daddy Bond is too much, I guess. It's too ordinary.

    Maybe it needs an exotic twist, like YOLT.

    I'm very stuffy about these boundaries. I think the cinematic Bond should never had had a child, or died, simply because Fleming's Bond never did.
    And yes, I know that's a preposterous thing to say when the cinematic Bond has done so much that Fleming's Bond hasn't done anyway. But I didn't mind that cinema Bond went into space, and I didn't mind that he went to Cambridge instead of Eton, and I didn't mind (too much) that he had blonde hair now and then.
    But making him a caring family man all of a sudden, then killing him off an hour later in the same film, was a little too much for me.
    I don't have much faith that the current team behind Bond will deliver a Bond film that my old-fashioned, traditionalist tastes will enjoy. Not after that last hour of NTTD.
    But as I keep saying, I really hope I'm wrong.

    Didn't the Fleming Bond have a child with Kissy?
  • edited May 20 Posts: 1,034
    delfloria wrote: »
    Didn't the Fleming Bond have a child with Kissy?

    No. She was pregnant, but we never knew if she gave birth, and Bond was ignorant of it anyway. Completely different to NTTD.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,201
    delfloria wrote: »
    Didn't the Fleming Bond have a child with Kissy?

    No. She was pregnant, but we never knew if she gave birth, and Bond was ignorant of it anyway. Completely different to NTTD.

    Well, in the short story Blast From the Past by Raymond Benson, his son is murdered by Irma Bunt. Kissy dies naturally, which is rare in Bond. Whether you consider this canon with the series is up to you.
  • edited May 20 Posts: 3,211
    Bond dying isn't actually a decision I'm fond of either. Like I said, it's really the only major thing which is fundamentally different from Fleming in terms of what NTTD does with his character (although admittedly it's framed in a very Fleming-esque way with Bond not getting that chance at happiness).

    That said in some ways I'd actually say something like Bond going to Cambridge irks me more, albeit in different ways. It's generally an unnecessary detail that certain Bond films add in (usually to justify something tenuous such as him knowing a certain language, topic, or individual etc). To me it just isn't Bond. Even when CR spins it to frame Bond as some sort of scholarship student who quietly resents the upper class people around him (or at least Vesper seems to think this - going from SF it's laughably wrong) I just don't get the sense that's a world Bond would ever be in. I always got the sense that Bond's knowledge comes from his real world experience. There's something wrong about such a man taking niche language courses at Cambridge, or knowing chums from Oxford or whatever.

    Anyway, I suppose what will be interesting going forward is seeing what exactly from Fleming they adapt, and what the new actor will take from that material.
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    Didn't the Fleming Bond have a child with Kissy?

    No. She was pregnant, but we never knew if she gave birth, and Bond was ignorant of it anyway. Completely different to NTTD.

    Well, in the short story Blast From the Past by Raymond Benson, his son is murdered by Irma Bunt. Kissy dies naturally, which is rare in Bond. Whether you consider this canon with the series is up to you.

    It's quite interesting the liabilities the continuation Bond authors actually took with some of Fleming's characters. Amis killed off Hammond (or whatever the name of M's butler/his wife was). Gardner gave Blofeld a secret daughter. Benson's quite liberal with it though - Blast From The Past and Never Dream of Dying being the main examples.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 20 Posts: 15,355
    delfloria wrote: »
    Didn't the Fleming Bond have a child with Kissy?

    No. She was pregnant, but we never knew if she gave birth, and Bond was ignorant of it anyway. Completely different to NTTD.

    Bond was ignorant of the child in NTTD until five years later. Doesn't seem that different, and the Fleming books ended before it got any further. Much like how SF took bits from YOLT, an adaptation doesn't have to be exactly the same.
    I also don't think the producers should feel limited to only reproducing the life experiences the character had in his 14 books in the last century, otherwise they can't really go anywhere. For me, half the enjoyment of a long-running character is to see them put in new positions- I want to see how he reacts with something unfamiliar. That's why Fleming had him fall in love and get married, get amnesia, become brainwashed by the enemy etc.
  • Posts: 1,034
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond was ignorant of the child in NTTD until five years later. Doesn't seem that different, and the Fleming books ended before it got any further.

    You guys just enjoy disagreeing, don't you?

    Fleming's Bond was never a father. Can we at least agree on that?



  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 20 Posts: 15,355
    He got Kissy pregnant. I think it’s more of a contortion to say he wasn’t a father from that.
  • Posts: 1,034
    Yea mate, whatever. He was a great Dad, if you like.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,234
    To my tastes I wouldn't have cast a female M twice, or even once. Wouldn't have filmed CR in 2006 with other than Brosnan as 007. And would not ever have been on board with a child character having a significant role let alone a proposal it could be Bond's own child. Would also not have supported the idea the Bond character could be killed.

    But with the results, I'm glad they did all those things. They stayed true to the character and I congratulate them on their success.

  • Posts: 1,632
    @mtm - I also don't think the producers should feel limited to only reproducing the life experiences the character had in his 14 books in the last century, otherwise they can't really go anywhere. For me, half the enjoyment of a long-running character is to see them put in new positions- I want to see how he reacts with something unfamiliar. That's why Fleming had him fall in love and get married, get amnesia, become brainwashed by the enemy etc.

    Love the pejorative use of last century. Not really sure if there are new positions and things unfamiliar. Done love, done married, done fatherhood, done amnesia, done brainwashed, done villains, ticking bombs, done clowns, done space, done underwater, done computers and nano bots, and done death.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,674
    For those who didn't enjoy some of those story/character beats in NTTD or in the Craig era as a whole, look at it this way: they got it out of their system, so we're unlikely to get most of it in the next era at least.
  • Posts: 3,211
    Indeed. Well, roll on James Bond: the musical for Bond 26. Truly uncharted stuff for the character.
  • Posts: 201
    Forget about seeing Bond 26 anytime soon.
    Have you seen the state of box offices grosses in the last 12 months?
    Huge studio movies are underperforming. Steaming has really impacted how people view movies now, so the big Hollywood studios will be less keen to greenlight huge budget movies.
    The Fall Guy is the latest casualty, going to streaming less than a month after 1 month of underperforming.
    So I think EON are going to wait this one out.
    They aren't going to rush into anything.
    They will starve the fans and make them wait until they are begging for Bond, thus making it a HUGE CINEMATIC EVENT MOVIE. It could be 5 years before we see another Bond film at this rate, perhaps even longer.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,461
    007HallY wrote: »
    Indeed. Well, roll on James Bond: the musical for Bond 26. Truly uncharted stuff for the character.

    Licence to Kill the Musical. Bring back Dalton as Bond with him singing "Della! Della!" over her body in the bed.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,864
    Love the pejorative use of last century.

    How was @mtm being pejorative??

    I just read the "offensive" post now three times. I have no clue as to how you came up with this @CrabKey ...?

    mtm simply pointed out that if the producers were married to a very small sample of a character's "life", inside of 14 books that were written 65-70 years ago, they wouldn't have a lot of wiggle room to have their series grow and flourish and still be around today.

    Which is something I thought you were agreeing with, until you took a negative turn with your accusation....
  • Posts: 1,632
    Huge cinematic event sounds bloated and overly expensive with impossible to deliver expectations.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,864
    CrabKey wrote: »
    Huge cinematic event sounds bloated and overly expensive with impossible to deliver expectations.

    That's what the EoN films are and it's the very strong reason for the producers saying no to TV spin-offs. And they usually satisfy these expectations.

    James Bond films are event films, for the cinema. Broccoli and Wilson have made this clear.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,674
    SonofSean wrote: »
    Forget about seeing Bond 26 anytime soon.
    Have you seen the state of box offices grosses in the last 12 months?
    Huge studio movies are underperforming. Steaming has really impacted how people view movies now, so the big Hollywood studios will be less keen to greenlight huge budget movies.
    The Fall Guy is the latest casualty, going to streaming less than a month after 1 month of underperforming.
    So I think EON are going to wait this one out.
    They aren't going to rush into anything.
    They will starve the fans and make them wait until they are begging for Bond, thus making it a HUGE CINEMATIC EVENT MOVIE. It could be 5 years before we see another Bond film at this rate, perhaps even longer.

    It's all about the budget. I am assuming the start of this new era means we won't be diving right into a $300 million-plus budget.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,864
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    SonofSean wrote: »
    Forget about seeing Bond 26 anytime soon.
    Have you seen the state of box offices grosses in the last 12 months?
    Huge studio movies are underperforming. Steaming has really impacted how people view movies now, so the big Hollywood studios will be less keen to greenlight huge budget movies.
    The Fall Guy is the latest casualty, going to streaming less than a month after 1 month of underperforming.
    So I think EON are going to wait this one out.
    They aren't going to rush into anything.
    They will starve the fans and make them wait until they are begging for Bond, thus making it a HUGE CINEMATIC EVENT MOVIE. It could be 5 years before we see another Bond film at this rate, perhaps even longer.

    It's all about the budget. I am assuming the start of this new era means we won't be diving right into a $300 million-plus budget.

    Exactly, @Creasy47 ... The first will be a healthy budget, but not extraordinary.

    If the film is a success, the budget will be rewarded for the following adventure.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 801
    007HallY wrote: »
    That said in some ways I'd actually say something like Bond going to Cambridge irks me more, albeit in different ways. It's generally an unnecessary detail that certain Bond films add in (usually to justify something tenuous such as him knowing a certain language, topic, or individual etc). To me it just isn't Bond. Even when CR spins it to frame Bond as some sort of scholarship student who quietly resents the upper class people around him (or at least Vesper seems to think this - going from SF it's laughably wrong) I just don't get the sense that's a world Bond would ever be in. I always got the sense that Bond's knowledge comes from his real world experience. There's something wrong about such a man taking niche language courses at Cambridge, or knowing chums from Oxford or whatever.
    You make it sound like going to Oxford or Cambridge is a privilege of the upper-classes, which it is not. It's open to anyone who gets the grades. Going to Eton, on the other hand, is from Fleming and is very upper-class. I know people who went to Oxford or Cambridge, I don't know anyone who went to Eton.

    Obviously we all have personal ideas about who Bond is or who we want him to be, not all of which aligns with Fleming; it's one of the reasons I think they should shy away from showing/telling too much of bond's pre-service past.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,355
    I get what 007Hall is saying: it's not about class but more about Bond doesn't seem the university type- he would get out and see the world, join the Navy etc. rather than stay in education.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,235
    SonofSean wrote: »
    Forget about seeing Bond 26 anytime soon.
    Have you seen the state of box offices grosses in the last 12 months?
    Huge studio movies are underperforming. Steaming has really impacted how people view movies now, so the big Hollywood studios will be less keen to greenlight huge budget movies.
    The Fall Guy is the latest casualty, going to streaming less than a month after 1 month of underperforming.
    So I think EON are going to wait this one out.
    They aren't going to rush into anything.
    They will starve the fans and make them wait until they are begging for Bond, thus making it a HUGE CINEMATIC EVENT MOVIE. It could be 5 years before we see another Bond film at this rate, perhaps even longer.

    I think 5 years from now might be pushing it but it seems almost certain Bond 26 won't be released before 2027 or 2028.
  • mtm wrote: »
    I get what 007Hall is saying: it's not about class but more about Bond doesn't seem the university type- he would get out and see the world, join the Navy etc. rather than stay in education.

    I prefer the Pearson take on Bond's education: he was doing some sort of remote school/reading textbooks (Pearson says law and psychology, and I would propose some sort of international relations based program) while he was being called up by his handler. I agree though that Bond spending 3-4 years at Oxbridge does seem off: I doubt that he'd have the will to sit for quite that long and be completely at the discretion of the lecturer. And anyway, based on how young Bond started his career at MI6 (anywhere from mid-late 20s), he wouldn't be able to get the sort of experience required in the short time/or would have such poor attendance that he'd drop out
  • Posts: 3,211
    007HallY wrote: »
    That said in some ways I'd actually say something like Bond going to Cambridge irks me more, albeit in different ways. It's generally an unnecessary detail that certain Bond films add in (usually to justify something tenuous such as him knowing a certain language, topic, or individual etc). To me it just isn't Bond. Even when CR spins it to frame Bond as some sort of scholarship student who quietly resents the upper class people around him (or at least Vesper seems to think this - going from SF it's laughably wrong) I just don't get the sense that's a world Bond would ever be in. I always got the sense that Bond's knowledge comes from his real world experience. There's something wrong about such a man taking niche language courses at Cambridge, or knowing chums from Oxford or whatever.
    You make it sound like going to Oxford or Cambridge is a privilege of the upper-classes, which it is not. It's open to anyone who gets the grades. Going to Eton, on the other hand, is from Fleming and is very upper-class. I know people who went to Oxford or Cambridge, I don't know anyone who went to Eton.

    Obviously we all have personal ideas about who Bond is or who we want him to be, not all of which aligns with Fleming; it's one of the reasons I think they should shy away from showing/telling too much of bond's pre-service past.

    Never having been to those universities but having had an ex-girlfriend from Oxford who knew plenty who did, here’s my aside:

    It is sort of a privilege nowadays as well in the sense that prestigious boarding schools (ie.Eton)/prep schools or whatever do actually specifically educate certain students at getting into these universities, often by individuals who have either taught or been to these universities. In my experience this isn’t the case for all. That’s why there’s often a disproportionate amount of ‘upper class’ students in such universities. But that’s an aside and not wholly relevant.

    As @mtm said it’s just the experience I think the character should have.
  • Posts: 1,632
    @Peter -I thought it an odd way to refer to the source material. You disagree, fine.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,864
    @CrabKey , I don’t agree or disagree. I just didn’t understand the comment as I didn't think that @mtm was referencing “last century” as being something pejorative (which means contempt or disapproval). I just didn’t understand it.

    I find @mtm is a fantastic member here, and I have seen some of his comments taken and twisted into something they’re not (I was guilty earlier on, but I realized I had misread a few of his posts).

    I also get the sense that this has pushed him into a corner and perhaps made him a little gun-shy to post comments, or he’s wary about who he responds/replies to.

    I could be wrong with my observations, but that’s the sense that I’m getting.

    So when I saw his post criticized for being pejorative, I could t believe it. So I read his comments three or four times over, and I still couldn’t see the charge, or how one could read something offensive in what he said.

    I actually thought you were agreeing with him— and then it took a turn. If I’m wrong, and @mtm was indeed being pejorative with his comment, please explain it to me. Where is he being disparaging or contemptuous? He’s a James Bond fan, a fan who also admires Fleming’s creation, so there’s just nothing to indicate he’s being dismissive or showing contempt to last century, 😂, in any way!!
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 801
    I must admit I read his comment in the same way as Crabkey.
Sign In or Register to comment.