<![CDATA[James Bond didn't need a reboot, but this website did. Its origins were as a site arguing that Pierce Brosnan should be kept on as Bond and calling for a boycott of Casino Royale. However, the consensus on our forum was that this no longer reflected our aims as an online community. This site has acquired a new function. Casino Royale created a sort of herd mentality on other Bond fansites. Those critical of the current orthodoxy on Craig have been made to feel unwelcome on the traditional James Bond forums and most have either left, had their account deleted, or stopped posting altogether. The Daniel Craig is not Bond forum provides a haven where people are free to debate the current direction of the Bond franchise in a democratic fashion.
THIS IS NOT A DANIEL CRAIG HATE SITE. Daniel Craig is not the devil, merely a talented actor who we feel was miscast as James Bond. For some of us, the issue is the fact that he looks so unlike any of the previous actors to play the role or any general conception of James Bond. Others feel that he appears too uncouth compared to the suave Bond we know and love. This was a widespread view when his name was first linked to the part, even from those who mysteriously fell into line when he was cast in November 2005.
Many of us are also unhappy at the decision to “reboot” the series, ignoring the previous 20 Bond films and starting the series again from scratch. We feel this was an unnecessary and cynical move, aimed at expanding the fanbase by disparaging a series of films that we love. Whilst few of us would object to the series changing to reflect audience tastes, Casino Royale and its attendant publicity seemed to send out the message to long term Bond fans that the previous films were all rubbish and you were idiots for enjoying them. Casino Royale set out to be a Bond film for people who don’t like Bond films. Well, that ain’t us! If this is Bond 2.1, then we preferred Bond 1.0.]]>