Well, if I have to be completely honest with myself, having digested the first blow of the announcement (which was luckily already cushioned by the 'leak' of Mr. Craig's mom), I can be onboard with EON's choice, if they don't f*ck up just some minor points for me:
- Not dying Daniel Craig's hair to fashion some darker hair. At least just a little bit. A blonde Bond? No way
- They mess up with the continuity, meaning Casino Royale being set before LTK (if M is played by Mrs. Dench) or DAD (if Q is in).
- If Q and M are supposed to be in and the story is to take place some time before Dr. No, I think they should recast them.
DD
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
Michael G. Wilson has gone on record today saying that Bond 22 is in the works as well and will star Craig.
Perhaps the 'Bond film every 2 years' is back.
There IS some solace in that notion, Doc. -{
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
This will be last comment on Craig. I find him to be a very disappointing choice. He simply is not James Bond, all the reasons have been mentioned before so I won't go over them again, he just has the wrong look. The reaction to him has been very poor throughout the world. Why? Because the general movie going public has a perception of what Bond looks like based on 40 years of experiance and Craig does not look like Bond. I predict the box office for CR will be a disappointment and the Bond franchise will once again be on shaking ground. I hope the producers remember a Bond movie above everything should be FUN. Yes, we want thrill, chills, stunts, beautiful women, some gadgets, realistic espionage moments, but mostly we want to have fun at the movies. If the producers turn this movie into some dark sinister violent episode it will be an even bigger disappointment. If they make it a Bourne movie they have made an even bigger mistake because the Bourne movies are a different style, they lack the charm and class of Bond. Bond should not be trying to imitate another movie it should be blazing the trail in front.
I don't know what they are thinking, I wish I was in the room with them when they discussed it, but I think they have made a big mistake. I have nothing against Mr. Craig, he is a fine actor, but Bond is not the role for him.
I hate to keep bringing up Cubby, but Cubby was showman and he knew what the public wanted and he gave it to them bigger and better than they expected. Unfortunately the current keepers of the franchise do not understand this. They treated Brosnan poorly and not they are treating Bond fans poorly.
With that I am done.
It does seem that they're trying to put together a Bourne movie with James Bond in it. The choice of Craig further indicates it I think.
You're right, though, those films have none of the class or charm. Bond movies are simply a different breed. I for one don't want some Bond taking out a henchman looking like death is the only thing he lives for. Could the producers be trying to mimick a Burton Batman film, in which the lines separating heroes and villians becomes increasingly faded? A film in which Bond has not yet developed his wit, style, class, etc?Even a film that might go so far as to underhadidly insult its predecessors? Have the producers trully run out of ideas? No, I think the problem goes back again to the choice of Craig. Had the choice looked at least like a Bond as we've come to expect, or had it been Brosnan, all those 'out of the box' ideas would have been just fine, an upgrade even. Interesting that all the predecessors for Bond seemed to fit that 'silhouette' of a man, despite their extraordinary physical appeal and attractiveness. (I say this as a manly compliment!) Despite our own physical shortcomings, we managed to see ourselves as Bond at times when viewing the films. Is this not part of the appeal of Bond? Now we DO get an ordinary looking man, resembling more our own traits, (some more than others as this IS a very ugly man), and we just can't seem to see ourselves in this Bond anymore. I'll never be convinced.
Craig simply doesn't work for me. I'm done. There are other movies to look forward to. Another Bourne and thankfully, I think, the Fleming Biopic planned by WB....
"Warner Bros. is planning on bringing the story of 007-creator Ian Fleming to the big screen. Based on a script by Damian Stevenson, the movie (currently titled Fleming) will tell the story of how the author's own experiences with womanizing and spying shaped his signature secret agent creation. It follows Fleming's early career as a journalist covering the Soviet Union which led him to begin spying on that country for the Foreign Office. He was the mastermind of numerous clever spying schemes, some deemed too outlandish to use. He dreamed of becoming a daring secret agent and adapted his own womanizing feats and the stories he heard to craft the Bond novels. "
If anyone is interested in some highlights from the presser, I have them posted at my website.
Well, there were some intresting tidbits... I wish I could dl the whole conference from somewhere.
The presser is very long with Craig arriving by speed boat. Actually he was escourted by two other military boats. He walked up the gangplank and was saluted by Royal navy personel. Craig looked very uneasy but took it in stride. He entered the presser with the Bond theme blairing in the background and took his seat next to Barbara Broccoli and Martin Campbell.
I am trying to make a short clip for my website but I have to wait until I'm done at work.
he said that the Royal Navy driving him at high-speed down the Thames: "...scared the sh*t out of him!".
You star Craig!, you absolutely f*cking star!!!!.
FROSTY, I'm glad you highlighted this so early. When I heard this, live, on the radio I CRINGED. The middle of the day, a live press conference, and he swears?? Is he off his head? Black mark no.1, Bond actors are supposed to demonstrate class.
Hardy, I'm in agreement with your post.
I was looking forward to this day, well, the "metaphorical" day when a new Bond would be announced. Not that I hated Brosnan or wanted him to leave, but I knew it to be inevitable and knew that a new Bond announcement would be exciting, thrilling and refreshing. I had faith in the producers to find someone to fit the bill.
Today, I'm not excited. Nor am I depressed, actually. I'm strangely unemotional and ambivalent. Craig wasn't on my list at all. For all I could pick faults in some of them, I can see Bond in Jackman, Gruffudd, Butler and Owen, but I've never looked at Daniel Craig and thought "oooh, James Bond." I'm still dismayed as to how EON came to that conclusion.
I don't hate Craig, nor even dislike him, I've no doubt he's a great actor, though his choice of roles in the past as not been to my taste. In terms of appearance, he's nondescript, I guess, but looks worryingly mature for a 37 year old; does that bode well for shelf life for a start? To add to the uncomfortability of Craig, is that the only places I've really seen him is in trashy tabloids and celeb mags as man-about-town with Cocaine Kate and Sienna Miller.
I really, really, REALLY hope to be wrong. I hope he's a great casting choice and I'll appreciate him as Bond. Looking back to 1969, technically (in my opinion) George Lazenby was a clunker of a casting choice. His acting was a little dubious and he sodded off after one, though he did have the look. But OHMSS was such a great film it rescued him, elevated him to a place in Bond history and I appreciate his tenure as Bond. But if OHMSS had been a howler of a film...
Which leads me to the next point. Not only do EON have a MASSIVE uphill struggle to convince the majority of us that this is the right man, Casino Royale must be an excellent film. At the moment, with talk of prequels, no Moneypenny or Q, a First Blood type mission, and the general dismissal of fan opinion by the producers, I can't say I have the faith that Casino Royale will be a truly great Bond film. And that, to be be blunt, is the main point - I'm more than prepared to give Craig a chance, but from what I hear of the actual FILM so far, I'm filled with dread. My main source of disappointment is their comments about the film.
I'm lost. Feeling empty, a little weird. I so want to be back here posting in November 2006 that CR is one of the best and Craig is the perfect Bond. But until then, I'm not fired with enthusiasm. I've greeted the press conference with astonishing indifference, and I need to be convinced this is the right way to go.
Hardy, I'd like to quote your picture again, but when I see the Stars and Stripes at half mast up there too, hell, let's go for a hat-trick
then the shock was re-instated when it was revealed that he WON'T be dying his hair...
I don't understand the Blonde question. Wasn;t Roger Moore on the blonde side? He certainly was not brunette. Perhaps brownish but certainly lighter than Connery or Brosnan.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
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)
I guess I would add this post-script to fans:
Cameras have not rolled on this production yet. It's silly to call the time of death for CR or the Bond franchise three months before the cameras roll. Perhaps a deep breath is in order.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
Barb has set herself to have made one of the worst financial decisions in the history of EON Productions. I can see the point in altering the tone of the Bond movies, but not the bond image itself! It appears that she has forgotten what makes Bond so appealing. He is "the man that every woman wants and the man who every man wants to be"! He is classy, debonaire, clever, tall, dark, and handsome. Instead we have been confronted by a guy who essentially looks like a criminal who is more atune to gangster films.
However, bond history states that their is usually a mediocre bond before there is a good one (subject to opinion). I am sure that Craigs performance will bolster this trend. We will see.
Anyway,lets look at the bright side. In 6 or 7 years time the contract will be finished to pave the way for Henry Cavill who will have lost his "kid" looks and will hopefully revive the franchise. For those of you who believe that I am overly pessimistic, I agree. However I believe that the key ingredient to a bond film is bond himself. Class is Key. This guy dont have it.
I don't understand the Blonde question. Wasn;t Roger Moore on the blonde side? He certainly was not brunette. Perhaps brownish but certainly lighter than Connery or Brosnan.[/quote]
True, Moore's definetly not dark haired. But Craig is really blonde, and you can't even see his eyebrows.
Plus, to be honest, Roger Moore's hair actually bothered me. Especially in his later movies.
Michael G. Wilson has gone on record today saying that Bond 22 is in the works as well and will star Craig.
Perhaps the 'Bond film every 2 years' is back.
Interesting. I wonder if that means they want to make sure Bond 22 follows hot on the heels of CR to really hammer Craig home as the new Bond.
As for Craig, I honestly think we must give him a chance. Not one of us have seen his screen test. None of us have read the screenplay.
Casting Craig does confirm certain things which I think are very good signs indeed:
CR will be darker, have a gritty edge.
It will explore Bond's character. It will be more adult. It appears as if they really are trying to explore elements of Fleming's Bond which the films (apart from the first 3 and OHMSS, maybe LTK) have never had much room for before.
Craig looks like a man who means business. He's steely. He's tough. He looks like he can handle himself. Connery was rough as hell before Young fashioned him into Bond; indeed Fleming was against Connery but won over once he saw him as Bond.
Craig is 37 -- he's not a "young" Bond which was being considered. Casting him means this "re-boot" won't feel so outside the Bond universe as it would if we suddenly had a 20-something youngster in the role.
Craig is a very fine actor and very charismatic on screen; which is the quality I think (IMO) Dalton lacked. So we are going to get a tougher Bond, but played by an actor with more range and screen charisma than Dalton had. (And many of us here liked Dalton because he pushed to be a Fleming Bond, but the material and the times worked a bit against him, and as I say, he just didn't have that star quality for the wider audience.) I think Craig has that star quality. He certainly has it in Layer Cake and from all accounts he burns up the screen in Spielberg's Munich.
Craig has a very strong and commanding voice.
Craig is British.
That picture of Craig as Bond looks cool. He looks deadly.
Craig is not a Brosnan clone; which is a good call on EON'S part.
Craig has a strong look -- not the traditional, handsome Bond look which we have been used to, but never the less, he has a powerful look.
We have had 20 films (21 with NSNA) which have presented Bond in a certain way -- do we want another 10 or 20 films all doing the same and going around in circles?
EON clearly want to push the Bond image. They have not taken the easy route here. They could have simply re-cast Brosnan. Easy. They could all just sit back and know they would have a hit with Brosnan. They could have gone for a safer, more straight forward new Bond. They have not. They have gone for the man they think will give Bond a fresh spin and who will suit Bond in CR.
Let's keep an open mind here. CR could be the Bond film we've all been after for all these years. It certainly looks like EON are determined to make a striking new film with a striking new Bond which essentially remains true to Fleming's original novel.
I can sense Brosnan being asked back after CR. Daniel Craig just doesnt look like Bond. Brosnan needs to come back after Craig has had his turn to revive the franchise, with a decent script this time. Brosnan + decent script = Brilliant (if not the best) Bond Film, IMO.
I can sense Brosnan being asked back after CR. Daniel Craig just doesnt look like Bond. Brosnan needs to come back after Craig has had his turn to revive the franchise, with a decent script this time. Brosnan + decent script = Brilliant (if not the best) Bond Film, IMO.
No man. Apparently they are already started working on Bond 22 with Craig in mind.
I can sense Brosnan being asked back after CR. Daniel Craig just doesnt look like Bond. Brosnan needs to come back after Craig has had his turn to revive the franchise, with a decent script this time. Brosnan + decent script = Brilliant (if not the best) Bond Film, IMO.
I cannot help feel that the franchise is about to go RETRO. The series is about to do Bond Begins with OO7 fighting the communist during the Cold War days. This leaves many opportunities open and can only offer the Bond we have come to know and love before the fall of the Soviet Union.
The photo of Craig looks very 50s or early 60s with a tux that is obviously from that era. Even the gun looks like his famous PPK from the early days. I just hope they have him using his baretta in CR because we all know that Bond gets his PPK in DN.
I am warming up to this idea and I look forward to November 17, 2006.
there is a thumb nail picture at the bottom, of how he will supposedly look. (Sorry if this has been posted already)
Personaly i am not impressed, i suppose we will have to see. I am not very confident about Craig at all. Has it been stipulated how many pictures he has signed on for? Maybe if this turns out to be a disaster, perhaps there will be a clause to oust him... here's praying
Joking aside its a bond film, and ill certainly give it a chance. *thumb*
I can sense Brosnan being asked back after CR. Daniel Craig just doesnt look like Bond. Brosnan needs to come back after Craig has had his turn to revive the franchise, with a decent script this time. Brosnan + decent script = Brilliant (if not the best) Bond Film, IMO.
Look at the picture, he DOES look like Bond. I want something different and that's what we've been given. I'm really feeling such ignorance coming from the Bond fans here! It's as if people are locked in some kind of security with the average dark-haired pretty boy. I got bored of Brosnan after TWINE, and there is something about Craig's Bond that feels fresh, classy, original and more like the Fleming Bond than any of those after Connery. And don't anyone DARE come back at that with some immature comment about the hair. It is fine, and no argument could possibly change my mind in that respect. I'm really excited about CR now and I'm not going to let any darn one of you ruin it for me.
What i dont understand is all this fuss about a young bond just out of the navy etc, supposedly on his first assignment and they pic Craig 37, who looks older than Pierce 52.
As someone mentioned some time ago, its obvious they are going down the Jason Bourne route. I just hope this film still embodies what bond is all about.
I am a big fan of Goldeneye so, i expect Campbell to retain much of what we love about dear old James.
The photo of Craig looks very 50s or early 60s with a tux that is obviously from that era. Even the gun looks like his famous PPK from the early days. I just hope they have him using his baretta in CR because we all know that Bond gets his PPK in DN.
Oh, just not the prequel idea. I can make peace with anything, even with... (gulp) Campbell (okay, perhaps I still can't)... but I'd rather they drop this idea for good.
I'm afraid, to me, the official picture of Daniel Craig as James Bond looks like Daniel Craig in a tux holding a gun pretending to be James Bond. Just like I would still look like me in a tux holding a gun. I wouldn't look like James Bond. And neither, in my book, does he. He looks like he could be on the set of something akin to Layer Cake for all I can see.
I'll rate his acting in the role when I see it, I'll rate the film when I see it but rate the ridiculous retro/prequel idea now, and I'll also rate his look now.
Many months ago, I posted several things on this site, but have been too busy to do so since then. When the news was announced today that Daniel Craig was to be the new 007, I thought of this website straight away "I wonder what the people of Absolutely James Bond will think" I am very dissapointed by many people's reaction.
Is there any chance people here can give this new guy a break? He's been 5 minutes in his tuxedo and people are judging him already. Ok so my best choice would have been Pierce to continue but come on everyone give Craig Daniel a chance! One comment that has surfaced many times is "He doesn't even look like Bond" Well I'd like to remind everyone that James Bond started off on the page and therefore he had no look. He was what you wanted him to look like in your mind's eye. It's amazing how narrow minded many people can be, so he does'nt have dark hair and a chisled look. Can we open our mind to the fact that he might be any good? No apparently not, looks come first. And the person who said James Bond died today - grow up!
The whole point of bond is that he exists out of time, and reflects the time whether it be the 80', 90's etc when the film is made, there is no time frame so a prequal is ludicrus.
A prequal would remove the film from the previous 20 films. Apart from perhaps the first 2 there is no chronological order at all, a blurred one at best.
A prequal to me smacks of lack of idea's... though we are talking bond here lol... am i missing the point. just kidding, 16 of those films are fantastic.
Many months ago, I posted several things on this site, but have been too busy to do so since then. When the news was announced that Daniel Craig was to be the new 007, I thought of this website straight away "I wonder what the people of Absolutely James Bond will think" I am very dissapointed by many people's reaction.
Any chance people here can give this new guy a chance? He's been 5 minutes in his tuxedo and people are judging him already. Ok so my best choice would have been Pierce to continue but come on everyone give Craig Daniel a chance! One comment that has surfaced many times is "He doesn't even look like Bond" Well I'd like to remind everyone that James Bond started off on the page and therefore he had no look. He was what you wanted him to look like in your mind's eye. It's amazing how narrow minded many people can be, so he does'nt have dark hair and a chisled look. Can we open our mind to the fact that he might be any good?
Many months ago, I posted several things on this site, but have been too busy to do so since then. When the news was announced today that Daniel Craig was to be the new 007, I thought of this website straight away "I wonder what the people of Absolutely James Bond will think" I am very dissapointed by many people's reaction.
Is there any chance people here can give this new guy a break? He's been 5 minutes in his tuxedo and people are judging him already. Ok so my best choice would have been Pierce to continue but come on everyone give Craig Daniel a chance! One comment that has surfaced many times is "He doesn't even look like Bond" Well I'd like to remind everyone that James Bond started off on the page and therefore he had no look. He was what you wanted him to look like in your mind's eye. It's amazing how narrow minded many people can be, so he does'nt have dark hair and a chisled look. Can we open our mind to the fact that he might be any good? No apparently not, looks come first. And the person who said James Bond died today - grow up!
Comments
Perhaps the 'Bond film every 2 years' is back.
- Not dying Daniel Craig's hair to fashion some darker hair. At least just a little bit. A blonde Bond? No way
- They mess up with the continuity, meaning Casino Royale being set before LTK (if M is played by Mrs. Dench) or DAD (if Q is in).
- If Q and M are supposed to be in and the story is to take place some time before Dr. No, I think they should recast them.
DD
There IS some solace in that notion, Doc. -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It does seem that they're trying to put together a Bourne movie with James Bond in it. The choice of Craig further indicates it I think.
You're right, though, those films have none of the class or charm. Bond movies are simply a different breed. I for one don't want some Bond taking out a henchman looking like death is the only thing he lives for. Could the producers be trying to mimick a Burton Batman film, in which the lines separating heroes and villians becomes increasingly faded? A film in which Bond has not yet developed his wit, style, class, etc?Even a film that might go so far as to underhadidly insult its predecessors? Have the producers trully run out of ideas? No, I think the problem goes back again to the choice of Craig. Had the choice looked at least like a Bond as we've come to expect, or had it been Brosnan, all those 'out of the box' ideas would have been just fine, an upgrade even. Interesting that all the predecessors for Bond seemed to fit that 'silhouette' of a man, despite their extraordinary physical appeal and attractiveness. (I say this as a manly compliment!) Despite our own physical shortcomings, we managed to see ourselves as Bond at times when viewing the films. Is this not part of the appeal of Bond? Now we DO get an ordinary looking man, resembling more our own traits, (some more than others as this IS a very ugly man), and we just can't seem to see ourselves in this Bond anymore. I'll never be convinced.
WB Behind Fleming Biopic
http://www.empiremovies.com/index.php?id=6127
"Warner Bros. is planning on bringing the story of 007-creator Ian Fleming to the big screen. Based on a script by Damian Stevenson, the movie (currently titled Fleming) will tell the story of how the author's own experiences with womanizing and spying shaped his signature secret agent creation. It follows Fleming's early career as a journalist covering the Soviet Union which led him to begin spying on that country for the Foreign Office. He was the mastermind of numerous clever spying schemes, some deemed too outlandish to use. He dreamed of becoming a daring secret agent and adapted his own womanizing feats and the stories he heard to craft the Bond novels. "
I am also very unhappy with this selection. Yes, craig was quite good in Layer cake, but he is not bond. He would make a good baddies henchman.
I have to agree - initial shock over with!!!
Well, there were some intresting tidbits... I wish I could dl the whole conference from somewhere.
The presser is very long with Craig arriving by speed boat. Actually he was escourted by two other military boats. He walked up the gangplank and was saluted by Royal navy personel. Craig looked very uneasy but took it in stride. He entered the presser with the Bond theme blairing in the background and took his seat next to Barbara Broccoli and Martin Campbell.
I am trying to make a short clip for my website but I have to wait until I'm done at work.
Hardy, I'm in agreement with your post.
I was looking forward to this day, well, the "metaphorical" day when a new Bond would be announced. Not that I hated Brosnan or wanted him to leave, but I knew it to be inevitable and knew that a new Bond announcement would be exciting, thrilling and refreshing. I had faith in the producers to find someone to fit the bill.
Today, I'm not excited. Nor am I depressed, actually. I'm strangely unemotional and ambivalent. Craig wasn't on my list at all. For all I could pick faults in some of them, I can see Bond in Jackman, Gruffudd, Butler and Owen, but I've never looked at Daniel Craig and thought "oooh, James Bond." I'm still dismayed as to how EON came to that conclusion.
I don't hate Craig, nor even dislike him, I've no doubt he's a great actor, though his choice of roles in the past as not been to my taste. In terms of appearance, he's nondescript, I guess, but looks worryingly mature for a 37 year old; does that bode well for shelf life for a start? To add to the uncomfortability of Craig, is that the only places I've really seen him is in trashy tabloids and celeb mags as man-about-town with Cocaine Kate and Sienna Miller.
I really, really, REALLY hope to be wrong. I hope he's a great casting choice and I'll appreciate him as Bond. Looking back to 1969, technically (in my opinion) George Lazenby was a clunker of a casting choice. His acting was a little dubious and he sodded off after one, though he did have the look. But OHMSS was such a great film it rescued him, elevated him to a place in Bond history and I appreciate his tenure as Bond. But if OHMSS had been a howler of a film...
Which leads me to the next point. Not only do EON have a MASSIVE uphill struggle to convince the majority of us that this is the right man, Casino Royale must be an excellent film. At the moment, with talk of prequels, no Moneypenny or Q, a First Blood type mission, and the general dismissal of fan opinion by the producers, I can't say I have the faith that Casino Royale will be a truly great Bond film. And that, to be be blunt, is the main point - I'm more than prepared to give Craig a chance, but from what I hear of the actual FILM so far, I'm filled with dread. My main source of disappointment is their comments about the film.
I'm lost. Feeling empty, a little weird. I so want to be back here posting in November 2006 that CR is one of the best and Craig is the perfect Bond. But until then, I'm not fired with enthusiasm. I've greeted the press conference with astonishing indifference, and I need to be convinced this is the right way to go.
Hardy, I'd like to quote your picture again, but when I see the Stars and Stripes at half mast up there too, hell, let's go for a hat-trick
I don't understand the Blonde question. Wasn;t Roger Moore on the blonde side? He certainly was not brunette. Perhaps brownish but certainly lighter than Connery or Brosnan.
I guess I would add this post-script to fans:
Cameras have not rolled on this production yet. It's silly to call the time of death for CR or the Bond franchise three months before the cameras roll. Perhaps a deep breath is in order.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Please forgive me but that just throws it off kilt. Can he just take his hair color down a shade not to totally ruin the dynamic?
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
However, bond history states that their is usually a mediocre bond before there is a good one (subject to opinion). I am sure that Craigs performance will bolster this trend. We will see.
Anyway,lets look at the bright side. In 6 or 7 years time the contract will be finished to pave the way for Henry Cavill who will have lost his "kid" looks and will hopefully revive the franchise. For those of you who believe that I am overly pessimistic, I agree. However I believe that the key ingredient to a bond film is bond himself. Class is Key. This guy dont have it.
True, Moore's definetly not dark haired. But Craig is really blonde, and you can't even see his eyebrows.
Plus, to be honest, Roger Moore's hair actually bothered me. Especially in his later movies.
DD
Interesting. I wonder if that means they want to make sure Bond 22 follows hot on the heels of CR to really hammer Craig home as the new Bond.
As for Craig, I honestly think we must give him a chance. Not one of us have seen his screen test. None of us have read the screenplay.
Casting Craig does confirm certain things which I think are very good signs indeed:
CR will be darker, have a gritty edge.
It will explore Bond's character. It will be more adult. It appears as if they really are trying to explore elements of Fleming's Bond which the films (apart from the first 3 and OHMSS, maybe LTK) have never had much room for before.
Craig looks like a man who means business. He's steely. He's tough. He looks like he can handle himself. Connery was rough as hell before Young fashioned him into Bond; indeed Fleming was against Connery but won over once he saw him as Bond.
Craig is 37 -- he's not a "young" Bond which was being considered. Casting him means this "re-boot" won't feel so outside the Bond universe as it would if we suddenly had a 20-something youngster in the role.
Craig is a very fine actor and very charismatic on screen; which is the quality I think (IMO) Dalton lacked. So we are going to get a tougher Bond, but played by an actor with more range and screen charisma than Dalton had. (And many of us here liked Dalton because he pushed to be a Fleming Bond, but the material and the times worked a bit against him, and as I say, he just didn't have that star quality for the wider audience.) I think Craig has that star quality. He certainly has it in Layer Cake and from all accounts he burns up the screen in Spielberg's Munich.
Craig has a very strong and commanding voice.
Craig is British.
That picture of Craig as Bond looks cool. He looks deadly.
Craig is not a Brosnan clone; which is a good call on EON'S part.
Craig has a strong look -- not the traditional, handsome Bond look which we have been used to, but never the less, he has a powerful look.
We have had 20 films (21 with NSNA) which have presented Bond in a certain way -- do we want another 10 or 20 films all doing the same and going around in circles?
EON clearly want to push the Bond image. They have not taken the easy route here. They could have simply re-cast Brosnan. Easy. They could all just sit back and know they would have a hit with Brosnan. They could have gone for a safer, more straight forward new Bond. They have not. They have gone for the man they think will give Bond a fresh spin and who will suit Bond in CR.
Let's keep an open mind here. CR could be the Bond film we've all been after for all these years. It certainly looks like EON are determined to make a striking new film with a striking new Bond which essentially remains true to Fleming's original novel.
That all sounds pretty good to me.
No man. Apparently they are already started working on Bond 22 with Craig in mind.
I cannot help feel that the franchise is about to go RETRO. The series is about to do Bond Begins with OO7 fighting the communist during the Cold War days. This leaves many opportunities open and can only offer the Bond we have come to know and love before the fall of the Soviet Union.
The photo of Craig looks very 50s or early 60s with a tux that is obviously from that era. Even the gun looks like his famous PPK from the early days. I just hope they have him using his baretta in CR because we all know that Bond gets his PPK in DN.
I am warming up to this idea and I look forward to November 17, 2006.
check link
there is a thumb nail picture at the bottom, of how he will supposedly look. (Sorry if this has been posted already)
Personaly i am not impressed, i suppose we will have to see. I am not very confident about Craig at all. Has it been stipulated how many pictures he has signed on for? Maybe if this turns out to be a disaster, perhaps there will be a clause to oust him... here's praying
Joking aside its a bond film, and ill certainly give it a chance. *thumb*
Look at the picture, he DOES look like Bond. I want something different and that's what we've been given. I'm really feeling such ignorance coming from the Bond fans here! It's as if people are locked in some kind of security with the average dark-haired pretty boy. I got bored of Brosnan after TWINE, and there is something about Craig's Bond that feels fresh, classy, original and more like the Fleming Bond than any of those after Connery. And don't anyone DARE come back at that with some immature comment about the hair. It is fine, and no argument could possibly change my mind in that respect. I'm really excited about CR now and I'm not going to let any darn one of you ruin it for me.
As someone mentioned some time ago, its obvious they are going down the Jason Bourne route. I just hope this film still embodies what bond is all about.
I am a big fan of Goldeneye so, i expect Campbell to retain much of what we love about dear old James.
Oh, just not the prequel idea. I can make peace with anything, even with... (gulp) Campbell (okay, perhaps I still can't)... but I'd rather they drop this idea for good.
I'll rate his acting in the role when I see it, I'll rate the film when I see it but rate the ridiculous retro/prequel idea now, and I'll also rate his look now.
Is there any chance people here can give this new guy a break? He's been 5 minutes in his tuxedo and people are judging him already. Ok so my best choice would have been Pierce to continue but come on everyone give Craig Daniel a chance! One comment that has surfaced many times is "He doesn't even look like Bond" Well I'd like to remind everyone that James Bond started off on the page and therefore he had no look. He was what you wanted him to look like in your mind's eye. It's amazing how narrow minded many people can be, so he does'nt have dark hair and a chisled look. Can we open our mind to the fact that he might be any good? No apparently not, looks come first. And the person who said James Bond died today - grow up!
A prequal would remove the film from the previous 20 films. Apart from perhaps the first 2 there is no chronological order at all, a blurred one at best.
A prequal to me smacks of lack of idea's... though we are talking bond here lol... am i missing the point.
Any chance people here can give this new guy a chance? He's been 5 minutes in his tuxedo and people are judging him already. Ok so my best choice would have been Pierce to continue but come on everyone give Craig Daniel a chance! One comment that has surfaced many times is "He doesn't even look like Bond" Well I'd like to remind everyone that James Bond started off on the page and therefore he had no look. He was what you wanted him to look like in your mind's eye. It's amazing how narrow minded many people can be, so he does'nt have dark hair and a chisled look. Can we open our mind to the fact that he might be any good?
Exactly.