Day: February 22, 2006

…I followed a Sci-Fi Wire link to CraignotBond.com, one of the most humiliatingly immature things I’ve ever seen any stripe of any fandom put out there for all to see. I’m not a rabid Bond fan, but I do enjoy a bit of 007 from time to time. I’m curious about the new casting choice and only just learned about the “reboot” of Bond continuity as of the next movie. I suppose I’d be more worked up about a reboot of Doctor Who or Star Trek, but then again, look what it’s done for Battlestar Galactica. Who can really say anymore?
Look, if the fans (assuming there’s actually a collective of people behind that site, instead of one disgruntled overbearing loudmouth with a web hosting account) who created this site are pissed that Pierce Brosnan wasn’t brought back…that’s okay. That’s acceptable. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, and to the freedom to voice it. But they’re also entitled to hear others voice their opinions of the original opinion when it the foundation of that original statement is badly constructed. If the person behind that site is trying to construct a logical argument of why Daniel Craig isn’t a good choice to be the new James Bond, he falls short of the mark. The basis of his arguments tends to be an unfavorable opinion of the actor in question, but that opinion is stated in the form of insults that seem to be bordering at times on hysteria (i.e. “his blunt features are more suggestive of a pugilistic victim of Rocky Balboa than of suave secret agent”). There seems to be a lack of acceptance that Craig is an actor capable of exploring new territory with his performance; the writer lumps Craig the actor in with a series of lowlife characters he’s played in the past. And even potentially juicy tidbits, such as the possibility that Hugh Jackman and Clive Owen were under consideration, are, despite being key parts of the writer’s argument, admittedly nothing more than rumors. Worse yet, toward the bottom of the “Craig is not Bond!” page, the writer’s arguments descend into a childish tirade that seems to climax with a little whiff of homophobia. (I’m not saying that Bond should be bisexual all of a sudden, but again, the writer of that argument is confusing the actor with a past character, not seeming to take into account that other people wrote and directed whatever it was Daniel Craig was in – it’s not like he showed up at a random movie set and said “Hey, I want to play this character because that’s who I am in real life!“)
I’ve sat through many a vituperative fan rant in my life – near-threatening tirades against producers like Rick Berman, Brannon Braga and John Nathan-Turner; endless and ultimately pointless debates over continuity; and overwrought second-guessing of where what is ultimately someone else’s creation should be headed, because damn it, the fans know best – and after all, who should the show be aimed at, fandom, or a wider audience? But the CraignotBond.com site comes damn close to taking the cake. I’m all in support of voicing one’s opinion, but to cloak it as “fact” – i.e. “Bond/Brosnan fans will not put up with this!” – and then “support” it with overblown rants…well, this guy is doing Bond fans everywhere a disservice, whether or not they agree with the casting of Daniel Craig. I’m sure he’s not the only person who doesn’t dig the actor in question. But hopefully the folks making the movies realize that he’s not representative of Bond fandom in general. Or any fandom, for that matter.
I keep quietly hoping this will all turn out to be a clever parody. I’m not holding my breath though. The writer is welcome to share his opinion…but should be aware that making himself look less than reasonable in the process only hurts any chance that the opinion will be taken seriously.… Read more