It's Official: Daniel Craig To Be James Bond

Loeffelholz

)

arthur pringle wrote:

:oDaniel Craig is the new James Bond? When did this happen?

I stumbled across a forum the other day called Craig,Daniel Craig.It has seven members and looks set to eclipse brassrubbing.net as the least visited site on the internet.They have a picture of Craig on the homepage in front of a Union Jack. The Union Jack is upside down and an upside down Union Jack is actually a distress signal.

Oh,the irony...

)

My, this thread has come a long way. )

"Hold the line!" B-)

Loeffelholz

Loeffelholz wrote:

JAMES BOND IS DEAD. LONG LIVE JAMES BOND.

Congratulations, Mr. Craig. You weren't my first choice---in fact, you were pretty close to my last choice (just before Vern Troyer), but now that you've been cast, I wish you all the best, and you will receive the benefit of my doubt...via one purchased ticket for admission to 'Casino Royale' on opening day. Whether I purchase additional tickets is up to you...and the filmmakers.

I've said my share of negative things about your aesthetically-challenged features, your vertically-challenged height and your smaller-than-usual body frame. All of these are part of who you are, and they will thus be a part of your interpretation of the role.

This won't be a picnic for you, Mr. Craig. You have a hostile fan-base, and you've already been co-opted by a wretched bourgeois poker fad, so you won't have the class of a Baccarat game to buttress you.

My advice to you: Use your new capital with Eon (such as it is) to insist on a few things in the script. Your Bond should be more fastidious, like Fleming's literary character, to offset what some might see as your deficient areas. Tell Campbell you don't want to just order a Martini, "shaken not stirred." Provide complete preparation instructions for the bartender, as your literary counterpart did in the novel. You should be able to tell the difference between a vodka made from grain instead of potatoes. You should be equally picky about your food, and clothing. You should straighten your tie, after brutally killing a man, within the first five minutes of the film's beginning. You should be urbane and smooth in your delivery of the lines, and determine the precise amount of cocky arrogance necessary for you to allow this iconic character to occupy your skin on the big screen.

And, 007? Try not to muck it up. :007)

Sorry, but I couldn't resist revisiting my initial response (as a non-Craig advocate) to poor Danny's casting, circa 14 October, AD 2005---note my reference to his 'smaller-than-usual body frame.' Obviously, this was before he was spotted on the beach, suddenly looking TOO muscular for many.

Still, no one could have predicted that they'd have him unable to drive a stick, losing both front teeth, being obsessed with women's health and beauty aids, unable to play cards... )

Anyway, thanks to the archeologist who excavated this magnificent exhibition of exposed nerves and bitter recriminations. X-( B-)

For relative newcomers (at least, those with the intestinal fortitude to wade through it all), this is an excellent primer on the "Craig as Bond" internet phenomenon--at least as it unfolded here on AJB, the best Bond fansite online.

...thanks for the memories...

:007)

Slyguy3129

I apologize, it wasn't right for me to do what I did.

The Sly Fox

Loeffelholz wrote:

Sorry, but I couldn't resist revisiting my initial response (as a non-Craig advocate) to poor Danny's casting, circa 14 October, AD 2005---note my reference to his 'smaller-than-usual body frame.' Obviously, this was before he was spotted on the beach, suddenly looking TOO muscular for many.

Still, no one could have predicted that they'd have him unable to drive a stick, losing both front teeth, being obsessed with women's health and beauty aids, unable to play cards... )

Anyway, thanks to the archeologist who excavated this magnificent exhibition of exposed nerves and bitter recriminations. X-( B-)

For relative newcomers (at least, those with the intestinal fortitude to wade through it all), this is an excellent primer on the "Craig as Bond" internet phenomenon--at least as it unfolded here on AJB, the best Bond fansite online.

...thanks for the memories...

:007)

Think of it as an opportunity! You've just written us a summary of Craig's less-than-perfect (to say the least ) history as Bond, so perhaps you've provided us with something that will provide enlightenment to the newcomers...

But from one Sly to another, I'm sure all is forgiven, Slyguy.


Anyway, I see we finally have a trailer now! After watching it, Craig still doesn't have me convinced he's worthy of Bond. He doesn't look or sound like the Bond I know and he doesn't seem to have that certain pinache that was a trademark of Brosnan. Nevertheless, we shall see... This does look like it will be an excellent action film. Craig looks the gritty fighter part, I'll give him that. I'm certainly open to fewer gadget scenes in favor of hand-to-hand combat scenes. But will this be an excellent Bond film? Will Craig convince us that he really is Bond? That's the real question here...

Loeffelholz

The Sly Fox wrote:

Think of it as an opportunity! You've just written us a summary of Craig's less-than-perfect (to say the least ) history as Bond...

Ahh, and that's the delicious irony of it---Craig has no history as Bond yet. My point is that poor Danny has been swimming against the current since his appointment to '00' status, dealing with lies, slagging and yellow journalism before even having the opportunity to meet (and defeat) his cinematic enemies :v

As to whether CR will be a good Bond film, versus a great action film, it will (as ever) come down to performance, but if you're completely hung up on his looks (as some are) it probably won't matter how he actually does in the role---and for the true partisans, poor Danny will, in all likelihood, never measure up.

C'est la vie. There's another Moore- or Brosnan-type lurking somewhere in the future, waiting to be fitted for his tuxedo, and James Bond Will Return.

:007)

00Cherub

Without going into a literary tirade, I'll say that I think Craig will be 'doing a Lazenby' on the bond fanbase again. There's a difference between slightly different Bonds (Dalton to Brosnan) and going from Brosnan to someone who couldn't look less similar if he dipped himself in gold and took on a double entendre laden name. I honestly believe this film will flop (even though I don't want it to), and they'll be forced to call in someone new. My suggestion? Clive Owen possibly. After his spoofing of the role in the latest Pink Panther movie, I think he could really pull it off. I'll stop now before I start ranting, but yes, I hold grave fears for this new movie with Craig at the helm.

Iceberg ahead.

beanlynch

The internet can be a savage place.

All the stories, all the productions issues, in the end, the movie will speak for itself, good or bad. What do I care if Daniel Craig can't drive a stick?

Loeffelholz

00Cherub wrote:

Iceberg ahead.

)

Bond can steer---rather well, in fact.

Lady Rose

Loeffelholz wrote:

Ahh, and that's the delicious irony of it---Craig has no history as Bond yet. My point is that poor Danny has been swimming against the current since his appointment to '00' status, dealing with lies, slagging and yellow journalism before even having the opportunity to meet (and defeat) his cinematic enemies :v

As to whether CR will be a good Bond film, versus a great action film, it will (as ever) come down to performance, but if you're completely hung up on his looks (as some are) it probably won't matter how he actually does in the role---and for the true partisans, poor Danny will, in all likelihood, never measure up.

C'est la vie. There's another Moore- or Brosnan-type lurking somewhere in the future, waiting to be fitted for his tuxedo, and James Bond Will Return.

:007)

That last sentence inspired me to post an interestint article I found today. Didn't think it was worthy of its own thread, but it is a pretty objective piece, which makes a nice change.

Be warned,it does contain *** SPOILERS***

http://www.futuremovies.co.uk/review.asp?ID=487


The casting of Daniel Craig as the world’s most famous secret agent (a contradiction in terms, I know) has provoked more media speculation than probably any casting decision in the James Bond franchise since George Lazenby replaced Sean Connery for ‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’ back in 1969.

An immensely capable and charismatic actor in his own right, Craig has never fronted a film of this magnitude before. Excellent in 2004’s ‘Layer Cake’ and ‘Enduring Love’, and in innumerable British TV appearances, ‘Casino Royale’ will clearly prove Craig’s toughest challenge yet. Hardcore fans were incensed by Craig’s slightly lacklustre performance at a high profile press conference shortly after the casting decision had been made, and by what they perceived as his physical shortcomings in the Bond role, in particular his blonde hair. Claiming that he lacked the looks to portray the suave and sophisticated 007, some have even gone so far as to set up a faintly absurd website demanding that he be removed, as if, several weeks into a $100 million production, such a possibility is even remotely likely. Further rumours that emerged after filming got underway in February - that Craig had lost a couple of teeth in a fight scene, that he couldn’t drive a manual gear stick on the new Aston Martin, and that he professed to hate guns - seemed to close the lid on his popular acceptance as Bond. It seemed likely that Craig would go the same way as Lazenby and Timothy Dalton – appearing in one or two films until either a Roger Moore or a Pierce Brosnan could be found to get the franchise back on track.

But after monitoring newspaper reports and website comments in the last couple of weeks, it is clear that a shift in perception is now firmly swinging in Craig’s favour. Possibly to combat the faintly negative press, Eon Productions and Sony have recently held an extensive press junket at the film’s Bahamas location, releasing stunt footage and pictures that show a toned and muscular Craig looking more than at ease in the part, and certainly more physically threatening than any Bond since Connery. Even more encouraging is the simple fact that the filmmakers have decided to adapt Ian Fleming’s very first James Bond novel, ‘Casino Royale’, the slow-burning thriller featuring a classic gambling scene, an archetypal femme fatale in Vesper Lynd (to be played by French actress Eva Green), and one of the most awful torture scenes ever inflicted on the usually unflappable secret agent.

The fact is that the James Bond of Fleming’s original novels is very different from the superspy of the films. In the books, Bond is conflicted, self-destructive, prone to self-doubt, but at the same time unstoppably professional and capable of total ruthlessness. There are no double-entendres or one-liners and none of the self-satisfaction demonstrated by the movie Bonds over the last four decades. By casting an actor like Daniel Craig, by adapting Fleming’s first novel, by aiming for a grittier approach, and by using a pre-credits sequence that will purportedly focus on exactly how Bond achieved his ‘00’ status (by the cold-blooded assassination of two enemy agents, one of them while he was asleep), ‘Casino Royale’ is a clear attempt to take the Bond films in a new direction, and one that I hope will pay off. It remains to be seen whether the public will accept the new approach however – a similar attempt with Timothy Dalton failed to impress, and the last Bond film, 2002’s ‘Die Another Day’, was a huge box office hit. This is certainly not a case of trying to fix a broken franchise. It should be remembered though that no Bond film has ever flopped, no matter who was wearing the tuxedo, and that collectively the franchise is the most successful in film history. It’s a lot for Craig to take on, and although I could make a reference here to him being ‘shaken but not stirred’ by the challenge, I have a feeling that in this next film clichés are going to be off the menu.

Loeffelholz

Couldn't have said it better myself...and God knows I've tried.

Thank you, Rose.

highhopes

Thanks for the nice post, Rose. James Bond himself never faced the adversity that Craig has faced since his casting. Gotta root for the underdog and I hope he aces the role. I think he can do it.

bigzilcho

bigzilcho wrote:

Ladies an gentlemen, with your indulgence, a not-so-brief look at the past.
I) When Sean Connery was first announced as Bond in 1962 the brass at United Artists was, shall we say, less than impressed. If not for Broccoli and Saltzman sticking to their guns in their belief that Connery enbodied the physical ruggedness required for the role, we would not be present in this 007 forum or any other for that matter.Ian Fleming was initially appalled over the choice of Connery (prefering David Niven instead) Terence Young campaigned for Richard Johnson. Cary Grant and James Mason would easily have become Bond if not for their reluctance to do a series. In the end, not only did Connery prove his nay-sayers wrong (particularly Fleming who became a Connery fan) but the decision to cast him has , in retrospect, changed the face of pop-culture history. (PS: Cubby's wife, Dana, always instrumental in her husband's decisions, raved about Sean, perhaps being the first woman to foretell the electrifying effect Connery would have on women as Bond.Could her daughter's gut-instinct for Craig have a similiar consequence?)

2)George Lazenby walking into the role of Bond in 1969 was the equivalent of being the following act after the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show in Feb/1964. (Frank Gorshin?) In other words, good luck, old boy, you're going to need it.
No matter which actor was chosen, OHMSS would forever be in the Connery shadow. Lazenby foolishly walked away from the role (pound for pound, the absolute stupidest actor's decision in film history). Time has been kind to both George and the film. Indeed, OHMSS is now an acknowledged Bond classic and ,despite some fans opinions, Lazenby (with absolutely zero acting experience) turns in a terrific turn as OO7.
Good choice , with a multitude of what-if possibilities.

3) After toying with the idea of John Gavin and Burt Reynolds as Bond, the producers went with good ol' Roger at a time when the series needed a stabilizing force after the chaos of the post-YOLT years. Roger was the perfect fit: suave, debonair, dependable and fun-loving. The missing link between Connery and Brosnan, Roger's Bond has always been the most divisive amongst fans (both in 1972 before LALD was released and even now in 2005). If there was an internet at the time of his casting , the Bond forums would have reflected the same backlash developing today for Daniel Craig. 12 years, 7 films and a billion or so dollars later, Roger was adored by the public and converted a few Connery die-hards (myself included) into a new-found appreciation for his 007. In a way he was Dr.Jekyll to Connery's Hyde: efortlessly charming and polished with the air of breeding that smacked of Fleming ,all Roger ever lacked was the physical brutality that both Connery and Lazenby had in spades. His 007 is the one that ages like wine: as the years go by, the appreciation will increase.

4) I clearly remember the post-AVTAK Bond speculation (anyone remember Finlay Light?). It was time for a new Bond and the heir-apparent seemed to be Pierce, without a doubt. Other names were considered (Sam Neill,Liam Neeson,Bryan Brown,even Mel Gibson) but there seemed to be no doubt that Pierce was the man destined for 007. Of course, legal entanglements prevented this, which opened the door for long-time Cubby favorite, Timothy Dalton. Not well-known in North America ,the gut reaction seemed to be that Dalton got the role by default. Similiar to George, Dalton was in the unfortunate position of having to follow a popular Bond. The shift in tone and temperment from Roger to Timothy was so sudden and startling (especially to NorthAmerican audiences) that
it has taken a few years to truly appreciate the gamble Dalton took in his 007. (Personal note: when I first saw TLD in 1987 I was floored by Dalton but was aware of being in the minority in my appreciation. My gut told me that this 007 will become the cult Bond of the future. I'm happy to be proven right. There are enough Daltonites out there to hold my jacket in case I ever need to defend Dalton's 007 from any nay-sayers in the crowd). Dalton was absolutely necessary to the evolution of the series, Ruthless, moody, even mean-spirited, his OO7 will be the template in the future for any attempt to capture Fleming's Bond.

5) When Pierce fulfilled his life-long destiny by stepping into the tux in I995 there seemed to be a tangible sense of relief in the Bond world.
Not only was Bond back after a too-long absence but there was a sense Pierce would set things right after the too-light Roger years and too-dark Dalton films. Everyone , it seems, was satisfied with the choice ( the first and, so far, only time that the choice for 007 was universally accepted), everyone, except this humble writer." Disaster", I said, to anyone who cared to listen, "He's too light..not tough enough...too much of a pretty boy...couldn't handle an Oddjob or Red Grant...terrible decision!" For months before GE was released I was convinced that there is no way Brosnan could work as 007. "In two words...im---possible!" I grumbled. I clearly remember sitting down in that theater in I995 with arms crossed, practically daring the film to impress me! The result? The single biggest suprise in 30 years of Bond-watching. I was stunned! Pierce actually impressive in the PTS! More than impressive, terrific, in fact! The way he moved, the gun held just right, the toughness already in place, his reaction to 006 being shot, everything was working perfectly. By the time he hides behind the squeaking trolley I have already been converted and when he catches the plane after the motorcycle jump I am ready to sign any paper which will erase any slanderous remarks I had made in the previous months. I was delighted,not only because was Bond was back in good hands , but also for the fact that the Bond lineage survives intact. The no5 007 is a worthy addition to the first four.

Forgive my long-windedness, but I was slightly disheartened by all the negative comments concerning the new Bond. History shows that each new OO7 has had to overcome both initial skepticism and the daunting legacy established by the preceding Bonds.

I have never seen a frame of film of Daniel Craig (and I don't intend to until CR) but my gut feeling is wow, thats a gutsy decision by the producers. A ruggedly handsome blond Bond. I have a feeling he's going to be terrific, don't ask me why, just a guess. How about this for proof? Despite a nay-sayer here and there, all five Bonds have turned out to be wonderful choices in the long run. No reason for that pattern to change now.
Good luck to Daniel Craig and hopefully he, and the producers, will experience a little cutting of the thing called slack by tough-but fair Bond fans the world over.

Fellow Bond fans, for absolutely purely selfish reasons, I wanted to dig up my original prediction about Craig.

I think its about time we took a look back at some of the comments about Daniel and see where everybody currently stands.

Its funny...I'm sure there are some members who will be scratching their heads over their harsh words. Of course, retrospect is key.

For most of us, Craig is a terrific Bond. Plenty of fun is to be had in comparing notes from a year ago. Enjoy.


"Yes...considerably."

Loeffelholz

Thanks, bigzilcho...I'm happy to report that I'm perfectly comfortable with my words on this subject over the past 13 months... B-) and with CR on a pace to do about half a billion at the box office, I'm not expecting much in the way of follow-up from some who've posted on this thread :v

emtiem

On this day last year all of the more popular Bond forums crashed because of the big news. I was an occasional poster here and wanted to see what some Bond fans were saying; and I've got to admit- I was disgusted at the reaction. I've never seen a knee jerk like it, and it's still pretty galling to read it. I was so pleased to see some more level-headed reactions at the other sites when they came back up.

emtiem

Barry Nelson wrote:

Craig is proving to be an inspired and popular choice, all of 8% of the people on CNN.com think he is a good choice.

This post from last year really proves that you can't listen to the majority on subjects that involve imagination. The phrase 'designing by commitee' comes to mind. The people really don't know what they want.

Not sure where that leaves democracy, mind you...

Moore Not Less

Moore Not Less wrote:

I am a long standing Bond fan of 32 years, I have been a member at AJB for almost three years. Today should have been one of the most exciting days of all. A new Bond actor is revealed who will star in a film that features a substantial amount of Fleming source material. Yet, today has been a real anti-climax. Apart from it being Sir Roger's birthday.

I have real sympathy with some of the members here who genuinely feel so let down and disillusioned by it all. I am talking about those who's opinion that I have come to respect, even if I do not always agree with them. Personally, I feel just.........flat, but not depressed. I guess as I am getting older that I am becoming more immune to life's little knock's. And to put it into it's real perspective, nobody's died.

I really do wish Daniel Craig all the best. I see him more as a Bond villain. However, I very much believe in the benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty and all that. So, I will go and watch Casino Royale to see if he can prove me wrong. I urge all those Bond fans like me who think that Craig is unsuitable to go and see the film also. And don't think that by seeing CR you are condoning Eon's choice of Craig. A substantial amount of Bond box office comes from the hardcore who go and see the films numerous times. So, when you do go and see Casino Royale and if your worst fears are confirmed just don't see it again and don't buy any merchandise DVD's etc. Eon will soon get the message. And if they don't Sony will.

Just supposing Craig exceeds all expectations. What a lovely bonus that would be. And if he doesn't there could still be enough to entertain us all in CR.

And another thing, please stop the personal attacks on Craig. He has done nothing wrong. I really dislike the word "ugly". Forgive the pun, but I think that it's an "ugly" word.

Looking back. Nothing much to be too ashamed about. Nothing much to be proud about either. I definitely over-reacted.

Loeffelholz

...You know...the more I look back at this thread, the more I feel the absolute need to URGE EVERYONE to read all 30-something pages---especially if you've seen the film---take the time, check out this brilliant snapshot in time...the flags at half-staff, et al...

Priceless, indeed. MasterCard, anyone? B-)

emtiem

From October 05:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Congratulations, Mr. Craig........Your Bond should be more fastidious, like Fleming's literary character, to offset what some might see as your deficient areas. Tell Campbell you don't want to just order a Martini, "shaken not stirred." Provide complete preparation instructions for the bartender, as your literary counterpart did in the novel. You should be able to tell the difference between a vodka made from grain instead of potatoes. You should be equally picky about your food, and clothing. You should straighten your tie, after brutally killing a man, within the first five minutes of the film's beginning. You should be urbane and smooth in your delivery of the lines, and determine the precise amount of cocky arrogance necessary for you to allow this iconic character to occupy your skin on the big screen.

Oh very good

emtiem

Moore Not Less wrote:

Looking back. Nothing much to be too ashamed about. Nothing much to be proud about either. I definitely over-reacted.

I'm just trying to resist the temptation of quoting all of the old posts and pointing out the over-reaction. Barry Nelson's one from the unveiling day where he says 'the last word I shall say on Daniel Craig' is particularly hard to bit one's tongue over!

Loeffelholz

emtiem wrote:

From October 05:

Loeffelholz wrote:

Congratulations, Mr. Craig........Your Bond should be more fastidious, like Fleming's literary character, to offset what some might see as your deficient areas. Tell Campbell you don't want to just order a Martini, "shaken not stirred." Provide complete preparation instructions for the bartender, as your literary counterpart did in the novel. You should be able to tell the difference between a vodka made from grain instead of potatoes. You should be equally picky about your food, and clothing. You should straighten your tie, after brutally killing a man, within the first five minutes of the film's beginning. You should be urbane and smooth in your delivery of the lines, and determine the precise amount of cocky arrogance necessary for you to allow this iconic character to occupy your skin on the big screen.

Oh very good

{[] ;%

emtiem

Form last year:

TonyDP wrote:

I'm a longtime James Bond fan (going on 30 years) but new to this board. While I'm particularly disappointed with how the producers have handled Pierce Brosnan's departure from the role, the signing of Daniel Craig as Bond and the general direction for Casino Royale have me concerned for several reasons:

1) A poll on CNN.com about audience perceptions about Craig as Bond shows that 50% of the respondents don't care at all; less than 10% approve of Craig. Over the past 15 years, Bond's fortunes at the box office (at least here in America) have been inextricably linked to the actor playing him. Timothy Dalton (who was a very good Bond and right out of Fleming's books) was greeted with indifference; just as Craig appears to be engendering now. Conversely, when Pierce Brosnan assumed the mantle the general public welcomed him with open arms and all of his films were commercial successes. Even if you didn't like them, you can't argue with the success he brought back to the series.

2) The producers are using predictable buzzwords to describe Casino Royale: darker, grittier, back to basics, edgier, etc. The last time I heard this was during License to Kill. Again, that movie was received with indifference in America and sent the franchise into dormancy for 7 long years.

While hardcore Bond fans would welcome a Bond true to his literary roots; the average moviegoer could care less. When it comes to a Bond movie, the average moviegoer expects a spectacle with over the top stunts, beautiful women, cool gadgets, and a suave handsome Bond. I know its formulaic but whenever the producers deviated from the formula, the box office tumbled. Let's face it, there aren't enough hardcore Bond fans to sustain the series; it has to appeal to a wider audience if it is to survive.

This is why I'm concerned with Casino Royale: we have a new Bond who seems to be engendering either rejection or apathy in a large percent of the public and a movie that seeks to ditch most of the elements that have made Bond a cinematic success. I see Licence to Kill all over again and I fear for the health of the franchise.

TonyDP

Aaaah... I've been waiting a whole year, after endless deabtes about this and what the public will or won't apparently like, to say: you were wrong! Proven wrong! In every way!

Not very grown up I know, but it don't half feel better.

Loeffelholz

Moore Not Less wrote:

...Just supposing Craig exceeds all expectations. What a lovely bonus that would be. And if he doesn't there could still be enough to entertain us all in CR.

And another thing, please stop the personal attacks on Craig. He has done nothing wrong. I really dislike the word "ugly". Forgive the pun, but I think that it's an "ugly" word.

Nothing to be ashamed of, indeed. -{ Quite far from it :007)

Sir Hillary Bray

I never posted in this thread, but I did find the following in the "EON, I Challenge You" thread:

Sir Hillary Bray wrote:

I just plan on ignoring all the folderol until the film comes out, at which time I will judge Craig -- and EON -- based on the quality of their product, not the degree to which they do or don't cater to the fan base.

For the most part, I adhered to this, and am glad I did.

Inferno

My this thread was a fun read. How sweet it must be for Craig now. Underdog to Hero.

This whole last year or so has been such a wonderful part of Bond history. You don't get a new Bond everyday. I'm thankful I lived through this stuff. I mean, EVERYBODY bashed the guy. I know I was disappointed when they announced Craig. For Casino Royale and Craig in particular to triumph like he did, you couldn't have written it any better.

I hope the DVD catalogs all this stuff, it's quite a story.

Bill Tanner

Funniest thread on the forum since I've been a member. Needs to be preserved forever as a reminder to everyone.

bigzilcho

Bill Tanner wrote:

Funniest thread on the forum since I've been a member. Needs to be preserved forever as a reminder to everyone.

I believe you're right, Tanner.

"Yes...considerably."

Loeffelholz

I've only recently stumbled onto this opinion, but...for me, Daniel Craig is now basically the second originator of the role. The Classic Era had Connery, who certainly defined it for 40 years. This Bond is different, in so many ways, from that one---it's a New Era.

blueman

Well, many of the criticisms about Craig back then--blond, short, ugly, unknown, inappropriate in general, etc.--still hold water for some Bond fans even after seeing him in CR. Different strokes.

What's become clear is that for many fans AND the general movie-going public apparently, Craig is a smashing success as Bond and is viewed as McQueen-charismatic, incredibly attractive, physically capable if not imposing, and very very Bondian. He's the entire package, as it were...again, maybe not across the board but to the majority out there, it would seem. (Um, I think I omitted how the critics feel about Craig as Bond, if that matters to anyone. )

Well put, Loeff, a New Era. Hopefully when Craig finishes his run, EON similarly starts yet another new Bond era...this one has been so gratifying. {[] (so far )

arthur pringle

I just spent ten minutes reading through most of this thread. There is some pretty funny stuff. I think we can look back and laugh, even if we are happy at how it played out in the end or are still...er...slightly bewildered

Loeffelholz

FROSTY wrote:

(Slaps £5 on the table!)

I'll bet anyone, that Craig WON'T make $400m.

"DAD" did, but it had: Brosnan, Halle Berry, Madonna, 40th Anniversary tie-ins etc., to fall back on - Craig hasn't, and he's got possibly a "hostile" Press, as well.

Frosty?...Oh, Frosty?

[dead silence]

:v

Crap! How ever will I collect?