Daniel Craig Calls Kardashians 'F*cking Idiots'

Sharky wrote:

fruitcakes like DC007 parroting some warped echo of my views on Bond.

Not to mention warped echoes of any and every distinctive view he could get his hands on. Rotating bi-annually.

Sharky wrote:

This is your average post there:

X3MSonicX wrote:

I don't know why there are people that hate Daniel Craig (Not necessary on this forum. I mean at a worldwide scale). He makes a great job as 007, and for me, after
Brosnan and Connery he's the best Bond i've ever seen.
I hate ppl who hate him, he's not the worst Bond ever as some of them says, and these ppl hate him just because he is "new" to the Holywood scene and they had never heard of him before.
Craig's a great guy, a great actor, the people shouldn't blame him for the director's mistakes. If there's someone to be blamed on, is not him, which does a Very Great job as Bond, but Barbara or Michael G. Wilson, whose produces Bond movies.
Look at his great job at CR and QoS. Both are great movies, although you guys MAYBE think it's not a Bond movie, but any other action movie, anyway for me those are great Bond films. As i've heard, CR was the one to hit the highest grossing on the Bond series, they should be proud of it, not hating on him.
These people should know what they are talking about, because the fault is not of Daniel. He's the ACTOR, he's being payed to act as James Bond in cinema screens. If there's something wrong, blame on Barbara!

Came back to this thread just to link to that.

I hate ppl who hate him

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Not to mention warped echoes of any and every distinctive view he could get his hands on. Rotating bi-annually.

His latest one is that the swimming trunks scene in CR is homoerotic. He has also claimed that women are only "real" women when they are pleasing men, and that this belief is in no way sexist. He would be absolutely hilarious if it weren't for the fact that he runs to the moderators the minute someone disagrees with him. The irony of it all is that DC clearly believes that his opinions are the only ones worth having, all the while accusing everyone else of "trying to ram their opinions down his throat". For some reason, the moderators lap this up - probably because they know that DC will throw a tantrum if they do not.

I'm spending less and less time there and more over at CBn, which has improved markedly since they got rid of the stupid reputation system.

I haven't logged in MI6 since March. Looking at that post Shark used as an example, I think I made the right decision. Looks like it went to the dogs. And that's the text speak I used to mock at old MI6 all the time with the teenagers jpeg meme.



"dont h8 teh pl@yr, h8 teh gamr. lolololol"

CJB wrote:

Sharky wrote:

This is your average post there:

X3MSonicX wrote:

I don't know why there are people that hate Daniel Craig (Not necessary on this forum. I mean at a worldwide scale). He makes a great job as 007, and for me, after
Brosnan and Connery he's the best Bond i've ever seen.
I hate ppl who hate him, he's not the worst Bond ever as some of them says, and these ppl hate him just because he is "new" to the Holywood scene and they had never heard of him before.
Craig's a great guy, a great actor, the people shouldn't blame him for the director's mistakes. If there's someone to be blamed on, is not him, which does a Very Great job as Bond, but Barbara or Michael G. Wilson, whose produces Bond movies.
Look at his great job at CR and QoS. Both are great movies, although you guys MAYBE think it's not a Bond movie, but any other action movie, anyway for me those are great Bond films. As i've heard, CR was the one to hit the highest grossing on the Bond series, they should be proud of it, not hating on him.
These people should know what they are talking about, because the fault is not of Daniel. He's the ACTOR, he's being payed to act as James Bond in cinema screens. If there's something wrong, blame on Barbara!

Came back to this thread just to link to that.

I hate ppl who hate him

X3Msonicx. What is he? A Robot? Anyway I can get on board with his blame it on Babs bandwagon.

Hey if DC007 wants to devote an entire thread to the horror show that is adonis-Bond Craig emerging from the surf, in his baby blues, come on down. :cheers:

Sharky wrote:

If MI6 is an online daycare center, then this is a pub.

I love this analogy! Most days at midnight if I'm not at an actual pub, I'm on this virtual pub here.

I still love Craig's comment though - I don't think he meant to come across as mean-spirited. He can be an awkward, quiet type of guy, but when he opens his mouth - he often hits the nail on the head. I notice in some interviews he really goes off on tangents, maybe forgetting that he's a movie star and a public figure to a degree.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I'm spending less and less time there and more over at CBn, which has improved markedly since they got rid of the stupid reputation system.

Only you and one other person gave a toss about the reputation system so I don't see how that can be (nor have I noticed any change because of it).

Erica Ambler wrote:

Is being paid millions to model speedos and run through walls any better?

Sharky wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

FieldsMan wrote:

Well what's the point of a forum if one can't debate? :)

They just don't want to upset anyone over at MI6

I'll say this: the problem goes back much further than the loss of the old forums and switch to the lame Vanilla package in March, or the "community" becoming just one big billboard for their magazine (that none of us here even bought), with a user base joining through their Facebook page, creating the most trivial, braindead threads imaginable (or as blueblood put it: "Just people talking about Bond the way my ex talked about nail polish.")
It goes back to 2008-09, where James Page started to slowly crack down on humour, individuality and adult-orientated posts, all to make MI6 more "family friendly." The "00 status" bollocks became part of that in the end - divide and conquer. The worst bit was seeing decent blokes like Dublo, Dimi and Smythe undergo the Stepford treatment when they became mods.
Now all you got there are a bunch of apparatchiks censuring every other post, a 12 year old groupthink, a Daniel Craig Stasi, and fruitcakes like DC007 parroting some warped echo of my views on Bond.

This is your average post there:

X3MSonicX wrote:

I don't know why there are people that hate Daniel Craig (Not necessary on this forum. I mean at a worldwide scale). He makes a great job as 007, and for me, after
Brosnan and Connery he's the best Bond i've ever seen.
I hate ppl who hate him, he's not the worst Bond ever as some of them says, and these ppl hate him just because he is "new" to the Holywood scene and they had never heard of him before.
Craig's a great guy, a great actor, the people shouldn't blame him for the director's mistakes. If there's someone to be blamed on, is not him, which does a Very Great job as Bond, but Barbara or Michael G. Wilson, whose produces Bond movies.
Look at his great job at CR and QoS. Both are great movies, although you guys MAYBE think it's not a Bond movie, but any other action movie, anyway for me those are great Bond films. As i've heard, CR was the one to hit the highest grossing on the Bond series, they should be proud of it, not hating on him.
These people should know what they are talking about, because the fault is not of Daniel. He's the ACTOR, he's being payed to act as James Bond in cinema screens. If there's something wrong, blame on Barbara!

If MI6 is an online daycare center, then this is a pub. We created this establishment in an attempt to bring back those glory days of Keeping The British End Up, but to be honest, I think we've surpassed it. No censuring, no humourless staff, no walking on eggshells, no copyright BS, an old school but classy layout, easier on the eyes, and a more diverse userbase.

Long Live Bond & Beyond.

Rrrraaaaaawr!

Santa wrote:

Only you and one other person gave a toss about the reputation system so I don't see how that can be (nor have I noticed any change because of it).

Who was the tosser that cared about the reputation system? Please say it was Mr.Blofeld! Please, please, please!!!!

Anyway, I find it hilarious that they got rid of it. Clearly some people couldn't handle being given negative ratings (I reveled in my -50 rating) and I guess it finally proved to be more hassle than it was worth.

As for The Kardashians and Daniel Craig...I was watching CHELSEA LATELY yesterday (would have been Wednesday night's episode) and they mentioned the whole "controversy" and basically the entire panel was on Craig's side of the issue (which is really remarkable because Chelsea Handler is a big time star on the E! Network and she's basically attacking the other big name star(s) of the same network; clearly there is no love lost and they are not one big happy family over at E!). The only disagreement from the panel came from one woman who said she felt odd because she just never could get into Craig and thought his ears were too big for his face, but Chelsea said she loved Craig, loved his looks, and that all British men are not angular or symmetrical and Craig was no different.

Santa wrote:

Only you and one other person gave a toss about the reputation system so I don't see how that can be (nor have I noticed any change because of it).

There were dozens of people who felt that they couldn't say what they wanted to say/what they felt needed to be said simply because people would take it poorly and make them out to be a villain. That person would then take it personally and stalk you through numerous threads, taking reputation off. Attacking another member justified negative reputation. Expressing a simple opition - ie "I don't like OHMSS and here are some valid reasons why" - should not. It might have been little more than a number and completely insignificant, but I do know that a lot of new members were scared off when they posted an unpopular opinion and got marked down for it. It turned the forums into an elitist club when only certain opinions were allowed.

Right. I don't think you were visiting the same CB.n that I was.

Santa wrote:

Right. I don't think you were visiting the same CB.n that I was.

Captain's right. Cb.n turned into Bond fandom's equivalent of Rotten Tomatoes, where consensus becomes the common currency.

Rubbish.

Shuddup and go make me a sandwich.

What would you like in your sandwich?

Coleman's English Mustard and French-Indochinese chicken breast.

Prepare for a Rosa Klebb Club.

In a nicely toasted Irma Bunt Bun, no doubt.

Santa wrote:

Right. I don't think you were visiting the same CB.n that I was.

Clearly the CBn that you visited was in an alternate dimension.

You *would* say that because you were/are part of the "cool club" over at CBn i.e. a person who doesn't make waves, doesn't offer up controversial opinions, kind of flies below the radar, etc...There's nothing wrong with being the nice person who gets along with everyone else. But with that kind of attitude, Santa, you're likely to have a lot of friends in life and probably won't experience much pain or sorrow. Is that really what you want?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Santa wrote:

Right. I don't think you were visiting the same CB.n that I was.

Clearly the CBn that you visited was in an alternate dimension.

You *would* say that because you were/are part of the "cool club" over at CBn i.e. a person who doesn't make waves, doesn't offer up controversial opinions, kind of flies below the radar, etc...There's nothing wrong with being the nice person who gets along with everyone else. But with that kind of attitude, Santa, you're likely to have a lot of friends in life and probably won't experience much pain or sorrow. Is that really what you want?

:D Gravy, you are consistently entertaining.

CJB wrote:

In a nicely toasted Irma Bunt Bun, no doubt.

Drenched in Goldfinger Gravy.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

CJB wrote:

In a nicely toasted Irma Bunt Bun, no doubt.

Drenched in Goldfinger Gravy.

Chicken breast sandwich sounds better smothered in Honey Ryder Mustard, or perhaps toasted with a schmear of Strawberry Fields Jam.

I voted no. Just to be different. And because I think it's classless, especially when you have the kind of profile that will get it carried everywhere.

Plus except for that latest fiasco with the wedding they've been pretty smart, they probably haven't paid a cent for anything for six years and get paid to take a shit so long as it's in the right toilet.

Maybe I'm a crazy capitalist, but I respect anyone who manages to turn their name into a brand - tacky or no.

Plus for the actor at the head of the James Bond franchise, something equally as commercially driven as The Kardashians, to judge the Kardashians is a little bit rich. The only difference between Daniel Craig and Kim Kardashian is Craig plays an angry faced spy who plugs watches and suits and cars and Kim Kardashian plays a version of herself who plugs jewellery and dresses and cars. And Kim Kardashian gets paid a lot more, more often, to do it.

In fact, given Craig is a cog in a machine and the Kardashians at least have control of some of the mechanics, hypothetically one could argue they've accomplished a lot more than Craig and are worthy of more respect accordingly.

I mean, an actor's an actor, if they get paid to remember brand messaging instead of lines I personally don't see the difference.

Vesper wrote:

I mean, an actor's an actor, if they get paid to remember brand messaging instead of lines I personally don't see the difference.

That's judging the whole thing in purely economic terms, which is a bit short sighted in my book. .