I can’t make any claims here of seeing every Bond film ever made. To be honest, I grew up with Pierce Brosnan playing James Bond in movie after movie and he will always be the guy I picture when the discussion of 007 comes up. He’s smooth, witty, and classy. Call it a bromance, but the guy just has it all, in my eyes. Daniel Craig has none of this. He’s the anti-Brosnan and it’s making me very anti-Craig.

Pierce Brosnan, as every Bond actor before him, captured the essence of Bond so well. He’s a good looking guy who can romance the ladies and, in a suit more expensive that the sum of all the suits I will ever own in my lifetime, kick the living hell out of anyone who dares to challenge him. He looks sophisticated throughout, though, with barely a hair daring to flinch out of fear of his wrath. Daniel Craig, on the other hand, seems to lack that suave sophisticated look of his predecessors. While the guy can undoubtedly kick ass, he looks as though he got into a knife fight with the doctor who tried to cut his umbilical cord. Craig, of course, won, but he took a beating in the facial area, so to speak. It just doesn’t fit.

The big problem, however, doesn’t lie with Craig and his looks. Sure, he looks like the body guard of someone like James Bond instead of Bond himself, but that’s not entirely important when compared to the glaring omission of the semi-realistic and definitely futuristic gizmos and gadgets that James Bond was always known for. The writers have made the series ultra-realistic by removing those infamous toys and, in the process, managed to cut out one of the most entertaining aspects of the series. Pen bombs, remote control cars, laser equipped wrist watches, and submarine cars were not only key to the feel of the franchise, but also one of the most entertaining aspects of it all. You were left with a certain “cool” factor that Daniel Craig’s fists simply cannot inspire. Sure, they inspire some fear, but no one messes with a laser watch.

So, what happened? Jason Bourne came along. The Bourne series of movies grasped everyone’s attention with their mix of fast paced action, espionage, and the entire personal saga of Jason Bourne himself. Somewhere along the line, someone decided it would be great to swap out the confused, somewhat lost character of Jason Bourne with an emotional, somewhat lost character of James Bond and place the good old 007 sticker on the package. Bond is not Bourne and can never be. He shouldn’t be, for that matter. Bond is supposed to be just past the line of believable with his crazy gadgetry, yet close enough to not lose the audience. Now, he just runs around shooting people because he has emotional issues like Jason Bourne. What the hell is that about?

They need to fix the mess they have created with the Bond series, but how will we know when it’s better? The answer it simple. All our worries can be eased with the return of the character named Q. Why? Because he’s the guy that helped develop all those crazy gadgets and gizmos that we all fell in love with. If he’s not back by the next film, I may have to give up on the series entirely. I can deal with Daniel Craig not having the look, but if I don’t get one damn laser and, at least, one pocket sized bomb that is somehow powerful enough to level a city block, I will turn my back and walk away. The most technically advanced prop of a Bond film should never be a damn stock Aston Martin. Ok, maybe we don’t need to get nuts and give it the ability to turn invisible, but give me a rocket or oil slick or something to appease my appetite. Let’s make James suave and resourceful, not a brute who punches doors open just because he can.

This is all stemming from recent discussions about Neowin and my last Bang On column which was posted exclusively on this site for the first time. It made sense, after leaving Neowin, to keep going with my more popular work and try to draw more visitors to my neck of the woods. It didn’t really work out as I had hoped and there was only an insignificant bump in numbers for a day or two. It was really disheartening.

I’m at a crossroads with all of this. The more I think about it, the more I feel as though it’s impossible to mix my interests and thoughts on technology and my personal life on one site. Most people don’t want to read my poems or journals and the few people who do are probably not interested in any techno babble. I can try to cram it all together and keep failing or I can figure out a better solution. Unfortunately, besides creating a second site and draining myself creatively, I have nothing.

For the few of you who do visit: Any ideas? I want to make it work and I want to include more tech talk here, but how do I mix the two worlds without alienating either one? I was considering, for starters, creating a “Tech Talk” category. Good?

Apples advertisements started it all, without a doubt. You know the ads I’m talking about: You have the cool, hipster guy representing the Mac and a brown suit wearing geek playing the role of the PC. The spots are clever and very noticeable, which every company wants from an ad campaign. The problem is, though, that they are becoming more and more repetitive and lacking any real substance. The gist of any of the new Mac vs. PC ads is the same throughout: The PC will freeze and crash and the Mac won’t. We get it. You’ve made your point. However, besides the one commercial about facial recognition software being in the latest iPhoto, the Mac ads lack any real indication of some of the benefits of going with a Mac. Instead, Apple just keeps screaming “PCs suck because they freeze a lot” until it’s blue in the face. The premise is becoming slightly annoying.

Microsoft’s commercials have really picked up where the Mac ads left off. First, they had the whole “I’m a PC” campaign which was supposed to inspire us all to be proud of using a PC. It wasn’t exactly as successful as the big company from Redmond wanted, but it was cute enough. The current campaign and the one to follow the aforementioned campaign, is the “Laptop Hunters” series of ads. In these commercial spots, we’re invited to tag along as specifically generic people run around town looking for the right laptop for their needs. They all consider a Mac, but ultimately choose a PC since the Macs are too expensive, have small screens, are only about aesthetics, etc. The problem with these commercials, though, is that the people we’re following aren’t nearly as likeable as the characters in the Mac ads. Ok, Lauren was pretty personable, but the others weren’t and toed the line of being annoying and obnoxious. When you’re trying to win people over in an “I’m the cuter puppy” war, you generally want to make sure your spokespeople are likeable. Good old Microsoft: Corporate geniuses who are incapable of appealing, on that level, to the consumer.

So, what’s the point here? If I had to say one thing about these advertisements, it’s that they need to ramp it up. Why? Because the more audacious they are, the more people will whine and moan about every single little detail in every line of the script. For now on, Apple needs to have Justin Long (the guy who plays the Mac) say nothing but “You crash!” for the entire 30 seconds of each commercial. As for Microsoft, they need to pick people who really hit a nerve. The next laptop hunter should be a womanizing guido who says “Hey, oh!” and “You know what I mean?” after every other sentence. Maybe have him slap the saleswoman’s ass once or twice for good measure.

In all seriousness, though, the endless slapping match between Apple and Microsoft is getting a little tiresome. Apple’s advertisements have lost their point and Microsoft is trying to out-Apple Apple. I want the Apple ads to remind me of all the cool, hassle free features available on a Mac and I want Microsoft to stop trying to be cute and just play the mature, to the point role that has won them so much success in the corporate environment. If that doesn’t work, the least they can do is get Steve Ballmer on the air. He’s always entertaining.