"Er... I don't do gears."

August 12, 2006 8:46 PM

Homophobia, bad 'fan' art and childish humor abound at Craig Not Bond, which is campaigning for a boycott of the new Bond film Casino Royale. Why? Because Bond is clearly not a sissy blonde fag who can't drive a stick. A painful excursion down to the innermost (and utterly painful) depths of pissed off fandom.
posted by Effigy2000 (83 comments total)

I'm happy to give Craig a chance, but I x2764; Clive Owen.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:49 PM on August 12, 2006

As a person who has always driven a car with a stickshift, I have to agree that real men (and real women) DON'T drive automatics.

Fire the wuss.
posted by bim at 8:53 PM on August 12, 2006

He doesn't seem like Bond to me but I'll give him a chance. That boycott site is hilarious.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 8:55 PM on August 12, 2006

Please, yes, Clive Owen, swoon.
posted by nickyskye at 9:00 PM on August 12, 2006

Of course, a true bond fan must be an anglophile, and the english don't call it a 'stick', they're used to calling it a manual.
posted by wilful at 9:00 PM on August 12, 2006

Admits guy-crush on Clive Owen (I wanna be like him) but I think Craig can pull it off well. His role in Layer Cake convinced me that he might have what it takes to do a literal 007 Bond.
posted by porpoise at 9:08 PM on August 12, 2006

My god, how many people have forgotten Roger Moore as James Bond? Now there's a first class miscast douchebag!

"The troubles started around 1985, when the James Bond film A View to a Kill featured a Grecian Formula-slickened Roger Moore busting down the slopes on a single plank. Ever since, snowboarding has been jammed down our collective throat and has brought with it such scourges as tongue studs, tattoos, baggy parkas and any number of bad bands. Though no one asked, they’ve begun to rap."
posted by mk1gti at 9:09 PM on August 12, 2006

And I fully support David Craig as James Bond by the by, I think he'll do a fine job. Although Clive Owen would totally kick his ass in a movie fight scene . . . .
posted by mk1gti at 9:10 PM on August 12, 2006

I stopped watching Bond films when they stopped being good. Or more specifically when I stopped enjoying them. They've never been good in an objective sense. Bad directing. Bad casting. Bad writing. Awesome special effects, fun party music, a strong talented actor in the leading role, lots of gorgeous women in skimpy outfits, explosions and car chases galore... They never had to be good. Just fun. I stopped watching Bond films when they stopped being fun.

I mean heck, no matter how much Desmond Hurst denies it, people have assumed Roger Moore was shacking up with him back in the heady days of Moonraker. So? I AM a self-professed homophobe and even I don't care. Casino Royale should be boycotted not because the latest Bond is more or less gay than any previous Bond, but because the Bond franchise as a whole has sucked for decades, despite Pierce Brosnan's noble efforts to ressurect the poor thing.

Bond doesn't belong in today's world. He was a product of the 1960s. Trying to make his character function in today's backdrop is like taking the character of Miss Marple, making her younger, and giving her a middle aged father. Oh wait. That's Veronica Mars. How silly of me.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:12 PM on August 12, 2006 [1 favorite]

And for those who follow Ian Fleming's ideas for what Bond actually would look like, David Craig is closer to Hoagy Carmichael than Roger Moore any day .. .
posted by mk1gti at 9:20 PM on August 12, 2006

I heard he hates guns too.
posted by delmoi at 9:23 PM on August 12, 2006

"I heard he hates guns too."

Well isn't that the final nail in this coffin? An actor portrays a character with opinions contrary to his own. Will the sinful hedonistic actions of Hollywood ever cease? How dare they cast a man who dislikes guns into a role where he uses them? That'd be like casting a man eater in the role of a vegetarian! Ask an actor to *gasp* act? I'm shocked! I gotta go lie down!
posted by ZachsMind at 9:29 PM on August 12, 2006

Who's directing. Whoever directed LayerCake could make a bond movie that was actually entertaining. Whatever happened to Guy Riche by the way? Is he just coasting on his wife's fortune now?
posted by delmoi at 9:30 PM on August 12, 2006

Speaking of Clive Owen directing, what about Vinnie Jones as Bond? Now there's someone who looks like Hoagy Carmichael. And he's got all the sophistication, sublety and gun-loving that Bond is famous for!
posted by mk1gti at 9:34 PM on August 12, 2006

He doesn't exactly seem to be as rugged in real life as his predecessors. He was injured a couple of times on set, including getting a couple of teeth knocked out while doing a fight scene.

This article really roasts him.

While original Bond Sean Connery was a man's man on and off screen, it seems 38-year-old Daniel is a bit of a wimp in real life - a New Man in a tuxedo.

He hates guns, sex scenes, drinking 007's martinis and had two teeth knocked out in his first fight scene.

There's much, much more.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:39 PM on August 12, 2006

He looks like an ape! An ape!

Not even an attractive ape.
posted by Krrrlson at 9:40 PM on August 12, 2006

what the fuck does it matter? as zachsmind said, he's an actor. a good one, no less. he can pull off james bond just as well as clive owen can.

the thing that people don't seem to realize is that owen's career is going off in other interesting directions, and he doesn't necessarily need to be saddled with being typecast as a single popular character. after "closer", the man can probably focus on doing, yknow, REAL movies.
posted by jimmy at 9:43 PM on August 12, 2006

He was injured a couple of times on set, including getting a couple of teeth knocked out while doing a fight scene.

A little bit of realism wouldn't hurt a Bond film.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:44 PM on August 12, 2006

the thing that people don't seem to realize is that owen's career is going off in other interesting directions

Agreed. He was easily the best actor in the otherwise empty and shallow "Closer" - the scene where he actually got one of the few great lines in the movie ("Have you ever seen a human heart? It looks like a fist wrapped in blood!") was amazing in how swiftly he convingly switched from rage to pity.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 9:56 PM on August 12, 2006

convigly should be convincingly of course :(
posted by thatwhichfalls at 9:58 PM on August 12, 2006

Wow, that site sure is cool, calm and sophisticated.
posted by Artw at 10:13 PM on August 12, 2006

You know, they give actors months of conditioning and training; how fucking hard would it be to teach him to drive stick? Really?
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:16 PM on August 12, 2006

Why they couldn't have made Samuel L. Jackson the new Bond is beyond me.
posted by blucevalo at 10:56 PM on August 12, 2006

Homophobia

Wow, no shit. These folks have some deep and serious issues.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:59 PM on August 12, 2006

A little bit of realism wouldn't hurt a Bond film.

Yes it would. Bond films are about escapism and fantasy. Why would anyone want realism in a Bond film?
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:14 PM on August 12, 2006

I don't get how having teeth knocked out could count as a mark against him here. He took a blow that was hard enough to do actual physical damange and that makes him a wimp? Or do real mean have stronger gums than regular folk?
posted by adamt at 11:32 PM on August 12, 2006

Yes it would. Bond films are about escapism and fantasy. Why would anyone want realism in a Bond film?

I dunno, maybe people who don't enjoy dumbass escapism? You can't escape if you can't believe what you're seeing on the screen.
posted by delmoi at 11:40 PM on August 12, 2006

Maybe actors and other celebrities are immune to this sort of thing, but if I was Craig, this would really hurt my feelings.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 11:44 PM on August 12, 2006

"You can't escape if you can't believe what you're seeing on the screen."

Tell that to fans of Doctor Who.

Vaguely more seriously, the James Bond films of the 60s through 80s were during the cold war, and it was believable. After the cold war things in the real world got more complicated and the writers had a hell of a time keeping up. It seemed all the plotlines post Roger Moore were not in keeping with the current events. The explosions and gorgeous bimbos were still there, but the backdrop which made Bond believable thirty or forty years ago just doesn't apply today. You have to place these films in another world entirely, and in that regard, Delmoi is absolutely correct. If you can't believe what you're seeing, you can't escape into it.

Bond doesn't make as much sense out of the context of the politics and culture which created it. Shakespeare's work may be timeless, but Fleming's is not. I say it's high time they put this franchise to rest. Bond was a sexist prick who disregarded the laws of physics more readily than I disregard my cholesterol levels. He should by all rights be dead by now, a thousand times over. Let fate bury him already, and throw those losers in Miami Vice down in that hole with him. The world will be a better place with them in the past and forgotten.
posted by ZachsMind at 11:57 PM on August 12, 2006

Vin Diesel as James Bond!
posted by nlindstrom at 12:18 AM on August 13, 2006

I'm willing to give blondie a chance. He at least looks tough, whereas the Bond franchise has had way too many pretty boys. And if they're re-imagining things, maybe they've re-imagined them far less sucky.

I used to like Clive Owen more but now he's looking sort of pudgy and pockmarked, and sounding kind of droning and congested. He's not really aging very well and lately he's picked some real stinkers, like "Inside Man" and "Children of Men" if that turns out to be as shitty as it looks.
posted by fleacircus at 12:28 AM on August 13, 2006

"I don't like guns, they're noisy, and they hurt people." - John Drake, "Secret Agent Man"

Are you going to try to tell me he was a sissy?
posted by Grimgrin at 12:30 AM on August 13, 2006

There's believable, there's stretching your suspension of disbelief, and then there's downright insulting your intelligence.
posted by fleacircus at 12:34 AM on August 13, 2006

I gotta echo, anyone who can complain about craig but can sit through a Roger Moore film needs serious medication. Moore was like somebodies grandpa.

But you know what was awesome? That seen in that Roger Moore Bond film where they were underwater and fighting, and they ended up strugglilng with a knife and one of them got their air line cut? That was awsome.

Feh. Everybody knows that Peter Sellers was the best James bond.
posted by lumpenprole at 12:40 AM on August 13, 2006

I am actually quite excited to see what Craig (and the writers) will do with Bond. I like the idea of the restart to the franchise.
posted by josher71 at 1:28 AM on August 13, 2006

ZachsMind; You wouldn't actually happen to be one of the contributors to Craig Not Bond, would you?

/jokes
posted by Effigy2000 at 1:30 AM on August 13, 2006

I dunno, maybe people who don't enjoy dumbass escapism?

People like that don't go to see Bond films. (They go see chick flicks.) The Bond films cater to a particular audience, and people who want realism aren't the audience.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 1:58 AM on August 13, 2006

I'm still hoping they will let Roman Polanski direct a bond film before he passes away, or let Johnny Depp play 007.
posted by b1tr0t at 2:15 AM on August 13, 2006

People like that don't go to see Bond films. (They go see chick flicks.) The Bond films cater to a particular audience, and people who want realism aren't the audience.

Oh whatever, it's not hard to write movies that appeal to a broad audience. Compare the first Matrix movie to Goldeneye. For example. The matrix took place in a fantasy world, so it didn't need to be 'realistic' but it did need realistic or believable characters, and it got them. There are real-world movies that are believable and exciting, like Layer Cake, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Snatch, Lock Stock 'n' Two Smoking Barrels, Fight Club, etc. Movies like that don't come out very often, but they manage to do it every once in a while.
posted by delmoi at 3:09 AM on August 13, 2006

While original Bond Sean Connery was a man's man on and off screen, it seems 38-year-old Daniel is a bit of a wimp in real life - a New Man in a tuxedo.

He hates guns, sex scenes, drinking 007's martinis and had two teeth knocked out in his first fight scene.

My god, it appears that actors may not embody the same characteristics of the fictional characters they play in movies! It's as if they have somehow developed a skill in which they, by studying some set of pre-written lines and list of actions for the person to perform, perhaps with the accompanyment of other actors doing the same, they can pretend to actually be this person.

Has someone alerted the media?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:13 AM on August 13, 2006

XQUZYPHYR : "My god, it appears that actors may not embody the same characteristics of the fictional characters they play in movies! It's as if they have somehow developed a skill in which they, by studying some set of pre-written lines and list of actions for the person to perform, perhaps with the accompanyment of other actors doing the same, they can pretend to actually be this person. "

From Wikipedia, in reference to Dustin Hoffman's "method acting" approach:

In the film's most famous scene, [Laurence] Olivier tortures Hoffman while repeating the seemingly non-sequitur question: "Is it safe?" ...To achieve his character's exhausted look in this scene, Hoffman deprived himself of sleep for two days. Lawrence Olivier commented upon this example of Strasbergian acting by suggesting that Hoffman "Try acting. . . It's much easier!"

posted by Bugbread at 6:36 AM on August 13, 2006

Harrison Ford! That'd look awful sweet on his presidential bid resume.
Han Solo, Indiana Jones, The President, James Bond.
posted by Balisong at 7:13 AM on August 13, 2006

In all the uproar over Craig's supposedly effeminate inability to drive a stick-shift, rather than spend X amount of dollars on permanently modifying a classic and no doubt obscenely expensive automobile, did anyone involved with this film consider the possibility of, oh I don't know, giving him a fucking driving lesson? It took me all of a day or two to master this apparently forbidding and esoteric skill, and I've certainly never been described as "virile."


On preview: what [insert clever name here] said
posted by Sullenshady at 7:49 AM on August 13, 2006

I'll take that as a compliment. Though I disagree with the website in question, I thought it was occasionally humorous.

Regarding the stick shift thing, this is indicative of what I mean by how the character no longer fits in today's world. We can laud the machismo of what it means to drive a stick and blah blah blah blah blah but the fact is no one in their right mind drives a stick today unless they drive an eighteen wheeler. Automatic transmission technology has improved by leaps and bounds in the past fifty years, making the stick obsolete. If a real man were going to be driving with one hand and shooting at baddies in the other, he wouldn't on top of that use his penis to shift gears.

Again, Bond worked for audiences in 1967. That was a long time ago. No one belileves James Bond can do any of these things in the movies and I'll tell you why: He's not Chuck Norris. Nuff Said.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:26 AM on August 13, 2006

I used to think Bond was all about the Cold War too. But, instead, he tends to wind up battling bald supervillains with cats and agencies with names like the Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion. So he's more like a 1930s Sax Rohmer hero than a spy. He might as well be battling Fu Manchu.
posted by Sailor Martin at 8:26 AM on August 13, 2006

Uma Thurman had the same issue when filming the last Kill Bill. The car she was supposed to drive in the Mexican scenes was stick, and she didn't know how to drive it. Well, they taught her quickly enough. Surely they can teach him.
posted by odinsdream at 8:31 AM on August 13, 2006

ZachsMind, I think you're awfully off-base with regard to the amount of people who still drive stick normally. A fair amount of my family still does.
posted by odinsdream at 8:33 AM on August 13, 2006

Zachsmind: this is indicative of what I mean by how the character no longer fits in today's world. We can laud the machismo of what it means to drive a stick and blah blah blah blah blah but the fact is no one in their right mind drives a stick today unless they drive an eighteen wheeler.

I can't speak for any other country, but the UK is still a manual transmission country, by and large. All my cars have been stick-and-clutch'd, and I think I'd be slightly weirded out if I drove one that wasn't. It's believable for Bond, being a British man of a certain age, to be more comfortable with a manual car.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 8:37 AM on August 13, 2006

Odin's Dream: "...A fair amount of my family still does.

And I'm sure a blockbuster movie will be coming out this Thanksgiving about your family driving sticks and doing car chases with explosions left and right, while beautiful women in bikinis make love to your relatives. Then your grandmother shows up covered in gold and uncle Bob roundhouse kicks cousin Mel in the driveway while Aunt Minerva laughs maniacally and talks about her grandiose plans to take over the world.

Uma Thurman would make a kick ass James Bond.

ArmyOfKittens, you guys still drive on the wrong side of the road. No wonder you're still driving a stick. Get with the 21st century! AND WHERE'S MY DAMNED FLYING CAR ALREADY!?? I will bet you flying cars won't have stick shifts.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:44 AM on August 13, 2006

I don't get how having teeth knocked out could count as a mark against him here. He took a blow that was hard enough to do actual physical damange and that makes him a wimp? Or do real mean have stronger gums than regular folk?

I concur. Hell, up until Timothy Dalton's run, the best, most realistic hand to hand combat scene in a Bond film was when those Gypsy girls fought each other in The Spy Who Loved Me.
Otherwise it was all Sean Connery swinging a foot away from a dude's face (The rooftop scene in You Only Live Twice is staggering in its blatant fakeness) or Roger Moore's stunt double tussling with one hand while trying to hold his wig in place with the other.

This whole thing reeks of geekish masculine insecurity to me. While Clive Owen would have been my choice, I think Craig will do a great job - or rather, as good as the edicts of the Broccoli family will allow.

Weird that he can't drive a standard, though.

Balisong: I really doubt that Ford could do the accent.
Remember "No ticket."?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:46 AM on August 13, 2006

I'd love to see Connery and Ford do "Indiana Jones Meets James Bond" but they kinda already did that only without James Bond. Maybe they could still make that movie, and have both roles portrayed simultaneously by Chuck Norris.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:59 AM on August 13, 2006

but, but, but, what about Vinnie Jones as Bond? Now there's a 'grab'em by the balls kinda guy . . .
posted by mk1gti at 9:02 AM on August 13, 2006

God damn sissy fag doesn't like guns or martinis. This is a damn disgrace.

Next thing you know, they're gonna tell everyone that the guy playin' Chewbacca wasn't a real Wookiee or somethin'.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:20 AM on August 13, 2006

vinnie jones is a terrible actor. please stop that.
posted by jimmy at 9:21 AM on August 13, 2006

vinnie jones is a terrible actor. please stop that.
posted by jimmy at 9:21 AM PST on August 13 [+] [!]

But so was Roger Moore!

I say, if we just give Vinnie a chance, perhaps just a few Bond films, this will give him a chance to improve his acting skills, and who knows, perhaps someday he too may become. . . .

*A Master Thespian* ! ! !
posted by mk1gti at 9:28 AM on August 13, 2006

All my cars have been stick-and-clutch'd, and I think I'd be slightly weirded out if I drove one that wasn't.

Really, you have to try it: it's GREAT fun. The nearest comparison I think of is with the dodgems at the fun fair: you just press the pedal and off you go! It took me a good while before I managed to stop my left foot shooting out for the nonexistent clutch and convinced myself that I couldn't stall when stopping or starting. Get over to the States and rent one of their behemoths and have a drive.
posted by alasdair at 9:41 AM on August 13, 2006

alasdair

much as I appreciate the thought of an automatic tranny over a manual one, until I can afford one of the more expensive newer cars with the sequential shifting I will stick (no pun intended) with the wonderful convenience of being able to manually select the appropriate gear for whichever corner or passing situation I might need rather than one a mechanical device with no electronic brain would select for me.

Now if you really want to get into fun stuff, try double clutch heel and toe downshifting while braking! Now that's what seperates the men from the Bond wannabes. If you listen closely in the first few Bond films you can hear it as Bond goes into corners in the Aston Martin. Great fun ! ! !
posted by mk1gti at 9:55 AM on August 13, 2006

And of course there's left foot braking for an added dash of spice and panache.
posted by mk1gti at 9:59 AM on August 13, 2006

Wow, it turns out Bond got assistance form Mr. Left Foot Braking himself!
posted by mk1gti at 10:00 AM on August 13, 2006

Is not being able to drive a non-automatic car not seen as a sign of being a wimp by Americans? I thought that was the whole point of Langdon's not being able to drive a 'stick shift' in The Da Vinci Code.
posted by Mocata at 10:31 AM on August 13, 2006

A gentleman should be able to drive a stick or an automatic with equal verve and panache. . .
posted by mk1gti at 10:44 AM on August 13, 2006

Really, you have to try it: it's GREAT fun.

I think my brother's experience has forever put me off: his old automatic Renault had a bit of a nervous breakdown once, disabled the brakes, and kept accelerating. Panicking, he disappeared at ever-increasing speed down the 281, cursing at volume Renault, automatic transmissions, and the suddenly rather unreliable power steering. He was eventually found on the other side of Guildford, shopping for a new car.

In the event of something similar happening in my old Corsa I could just have forced the stick into neutral, slid to a graceful stop, and dialled the RAC, which was on the speed-dial at that point because of this orange light on the dashboard that insisted on haunting me and, sometimes, the engine.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 11:33 AM on August 13, 2006

It's a kind of bigotry against blond men, clearly.

Blonds are supposed to be Nazi's and Commi's, not good guys.

Give him a chance.

I think that, someday, the kid who plays Harry Potter now will make a great James Bond.
posted by rougy at 11:33 AM on August 13, 2006

porpoise, I admire you for admitting to a guy-crush on Clive Owen *sigh*.

So we have a Metro Bond. Times have changed.

To the best of my knowledge there was a very interesting real-life character, Thomas Corbally, a friend of Ian Fleming's, who was the model for 007. Corbally's life was packed with adventure and he had info on everybody, was quite a secret mover-and-shaker, a consultant for the globally powerful snoop firm, Kroll, which does "elite intelligence" and was involved with some seriously corrupt gazillion dollar rip off scheme with Martin Frankel.

Mr. Corbally played a decisive role in famous British scandal known as the Profumo Affair, which brought down the government of Prime Minister Harold MacMillan (whose wife was a sister of the Duke of Devonshire), and which also elevated a couple of very pretty hookers to the status of Household Words in the early 1960s.

Corbally, a boy from New Jersey where his father was a cop...

Radio obit of Thomas Corbally.


posted by nickyskye at 11:37 AM on August 13, 2006

I always thought Bond movies were like Kiss and professional wrestling; marketed for the age after Wylie Coyote and before porn and marijuana.
posted by Tube at 12:01 PM on August 13, 2006

He doesn't exactly seem to be as rugged in real life as his predecessors.

Based on what? That he has a fear of heights but got up on a 200-foot crane anyway? That he got a couple of teeth knocked out in an accident? That sex scenes filmed in front of other people don't get him off? Is that what makes a man less "rugged in real life," Steven?

Whatever. And the folks at that site screaming "fag!" at him are not only jerks, they're morons, too, for complaining that the too tough-looking Craig [get this] "could never pass for a sales representative," like Ian Fleming's original ultra-smooth Bond. Riiiiight. That's why Fleming gave the original Bond a nice long 3-inch scar down the left side of his face, so he could blend in as a sales rep. Jesus; the scar's one of the more famous elements of the original Bond. How stupid can you get?
posted by mediareport at 12:29 PM on August 13, 2006

can't drive a stick
Too bad - it's about time for a gay Bond.
I second the vote for Uma Thurman.
posted by jam_pony at 12:57 PM on August 13, 2006

mk1gti writes "Now if you really want to get into fun stuff, try double clutch heel and toe downshifting while braking! Now that's what seperates the men from the Bond wannabes."

I never understood why anyone would want to wear our their transmission to slow down rather than their brakes, which are much cheaper to replace.
posted by krinklyfig at 1:02 PM on August 13, 2006

Hmm. Let me get this straight: he's rugged looking instead of smooth and pretty, and he reckons guns to be capable of inflicting ugly damage, but he's willing to take chances when the results are important (like, ooooooooh, risking getting his teeth knocked loose to get a good stunt on film)?

While I in no way endorse the absurd notion that actors should behave like their characters, I'll point out that this sounds rather like the ruthless, pragmatic Bond of the early novels instead of the slick trickster of the film franchise. I gave up on the films a decade ago, but this might coax me back.
posted by Elsa at 1:45 PM on August 13, 2006

All my cars have been stick-and-clutch'd, and I think I'd be slightly weirded out if I drove one that wasn't.

You know, I felt that way until I bought an automatic a few months ago. I've owned manuals for most of my life but I'm loving driving an auto. The comute to work is so much less stressful without having to worry about clutching in 2 MPH traffic. That said, everyone should probably know how to drive a stick.
posted by octothorpe at 2:11 PM on August 13, 2006

I've driven both automatics and manuals.

They're good at different things. Driving in the US or canada, where you have vast, vast lengths of straight road, you want cruise control and an automatic.

In city traffic, where as octothorpe says, you don't want to faff about changing gear at low speeds, auto's are great - once you get past the fear that the brakes are going to fail and you're going to keep driving until you hit something big and concretey.

If you live out in the hilly, twisty, narrow high sided rural bits (the UK, unlike the US, still has roads with bends in), you really really want a stick. Especially if you need to pass a horse-box or caravan, you really want to be able to manually drop a gear. Sports-mode has it's place, but when out in the countryside, nothing beats a proper gearbox.
posted by ArkhanJG at 2:40 PM on August 13, 2006

If you live out in the hilly, twisty, narrow high sided rural bits (the UK, unlike the US, still has roads with bends in), you really really want a stick.

This here. I'm a late-comer to the city, having lived all my life in the countryside, and sometimes -- when you have a tiny bit of straight road and the tractor's been friendly and moved over but you still only have a few seconds before your window closes and you become a danger to everyone else -- you really have to shove it. The most common complaint I heard from family and friends who tried autos is that you just can't overtake properly. Well, that and my dad said it was like driving a box of tissues, but it was a Mondeo.

I never had a problem with low-speed, city stuff, though; stick driving is sort of engraved on my brain, such that the actions of clutch-shift-power, clutch-shift-power are so automatic that I don't even notice them when moving from traffic light to traffic light. I suppose that if you don't learn a stick from the moment you start driving it's going to seem like a bit of a pointless addition when you can just zoom around like a go-kart.

On Bond, *sigh* I miss Dalton. He had a lovely jawline, and he knew how to handle a 'cello.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 3:07 PM on August 13, 2006

I never understood why anyone would want to wear our their transmission to slow down rather than their brakes, which are much cheaper to replace.
posted by krinklyfig

Two instances I can think of, off the top of my head...
One: a speed trap - you see it up ahead, and you're going too fast and you're going to get flagged. In an auto, you'd hit the brakes to bring you under the speed limit before the cops notice, and the front end of the car dips. If they're paying attention, the cops would pull you over. In a manual, there's no telltale dip.
Two: The traffic you're driving in starts to look a little suspicious and you drop a gear to slow down. All of a sudden someone does something totally stupid and you're in a situation you have to get out of. Because you've just downshifted, you've got a lot of available power and can use that to accelerate out of it, or you could drop another gear. Perhaps this'd end up damaging/blowing the engine depending on what speed you're going at, but that's preferable to a major crash and a steering column through the sternum. :)
posted by Zack_Replica at 4:47 PM on August 13, 2006

He had a lovely jawline, and he knew how to handle a 'cello.

posted by kirkaracha at 4:49 PM on August 13, 2006

Zack_Replica writes "Two instances I can think of, off the top of my head..."

You misunderstand me. I prefer having a manual transmission. What I find silly is the notion that engine braking is preferable to braking with the brakes.
posted by krinklyfig at 4:52 PM on August 13, 2006

Oh, and from the woman's point of view...

"(...)I would have to say Roger is probably my favorite Bond, despite the fact he has zero hair on his chest. Some women love the smooth chest, I feel that the Lord never intended for men to be skinny or hairless."

Well. I'm not really sure where to go with this. I'm guessing that the Lord is hirsute. And ripped. Whereas I'm not, so therefore I'm the AntiLord? Or the AntiMan? (hey! maybe i'm a supervillain!) Just Another Skinny Geek Who Needs To Be Made A Man? (help me Charles Atlas, help me!)

I hearby hominate Olga from the Toy Dolls as James Bond!
posted by Zack_Replica at 5:01 PM on August 13, 2006

krinklyfig - ah, gotcha.
posted by Zack_Replica at 5:03 PM on August 13, 2006

I've never driven a stickshift. A few weeks ago I got a new Prius and I'm hooked on the CVT, which rides smoother than anything I've ever driven.
posted by mike3k at 5:46 PM on August 13, 2006

I never understood why anyone would want to wear our their transmission to slow down rather than their brakes, which are much cheaper to replace.
posted by krinklyfig at 1:02 PM PST on August 13 [+] [!]

Well, there's a couple of things here; namely winning the race if it's a motorsports event. By using engine braking *and* the car's brakes you've got two advantages, in addition to having power available right away instead of waiting for the automatic to catch up; two, it's just much more efficient. I have nothing against automatics, it's just that unless one has a fairly modern version such as a sequential shifter you will always be caught out by someone with a manual transmission in a speed contest whether on road or track. It's simply a matter of which is the more efficient at point to point speed. The plain old automatic is just not up to the job. And if one is worried about wear of parts, in a competition event the person driving the manual will win, have plenty left over to repair whatever damage occured (very minimal indeed, I speak from experience) and continue on to win the next event. Plus it just looks and feels so much cooler than an automatic. Again, classic auto trannys: fine for commuting, terrible for gas mileage, sucks for when it really counts.

And zack_replica covered the rest very nicely indeed.

If you want to be a sheep, get an auto. If you think of yourself as a wolf or shark, only a manual or manual capable transmission will do.

And regarding the Mondeo thang, I used to have a four cylinder Mondeo (Contour over here in the U.S. of buggered up states) and it was a great car. Of course I had a manual and it made all the difference in the world. Four hundred miles a day at 90 miles per hour between fill-ups. Doesn't get any better than that. And if you got the Contour SVT with the V-6 engine, you had a very capable sports car in the guise of a family four door sedan.
posted by mk1gti at 6:29 PM on August 13, 2006

mk1gti : "If you want to be a sheep, get an auto. If you think of yourself as a wolf or shark, only a manual or manual capable transmission will do."

What if you think of yourself as a human who needs transportation?
posted by Bugbread at 7:50 AM on August 14, 2006

People like that don't go to see Bond films. (They go see chick flicks.)

Oh, whatever, Steven. I've seen every Bond film ever made -- On Her Majesty's Secret Service happens to be my favorite, mainly because of my huge girl-crush on Diana Rigg -- and I'm undeniably, certifiably, 100% female. As far as chick flicks go, the most recent one I saw was Brokeback Mountain, which probably brought my grand total up to around five or six in the last thirty-some odd years of going to movies.

I do agree with you on the realism angle, however. When I want realism, I watch a documentary. When I want silly, over the top action scenes featuring invisible cars that shoot bullets and/or lasers, I see a Bond flick.
posted by likorish at 3:20 PM on August 14, 2006

Count me as one of the many who raised a great hue and cry when Craig was chosen over Clive Owen (!), but after the recent Entertainment Weekly feature, I'm more than willing to give him a chance. I care more about the continued success of the franchise than the actor (but still - Clive Owen!), so I'll happily plunk down my $12.00 to see it when it is released.
posted by likorish at 3:26 PM on August 14, 2006

If Harrison Ford ran for President, there'd be no stopping him.

You know it, I know it.
posted by darkstar at 11:28 PM on August 16, 2006