I feel really sorry for Daniel Craig, he has been put in a really difficult situation. Nobody disputes his acting ability or on-screen charisma, but Eon are playing risk with over 30 years of history and cinemagoers perceptions.
It would have made more sense for Eon to pick up where the Jinx movie left off and create an alternative spy franchise. Weren't the Harry Palmer films done by Broccolli and Saltzman back in the day? Daniel Craig would be a perfect Harry Palmer, and everybody would have looked forward to seeing him in a spy franchise doing cold-hearted, unfeeling spy-derring-do.
But this is freaking James Bond we're talking about, and it wasn't even broken, depending on your persepective. Why do the Bond films need to compete with Bourne? There's room for both, why so scared? And why the obsession with "....begins!" Yes, the Batman and Superman franchises were dead, so it makes sense to restart them, but Bond as a franchise is unique. All Eon are going to succeed is make the Bond movies the same as other movies we might see coming from other studios.
Eon have already compromised on their new Bond vision by casting a more mature actor. I think Casino Royale will do OK business, just because of the curiosity factor, it's the 2nd one that will tell the real story, and the audience's appetite for Craig's Bond. I think the fact they are rushing into pre-production on Bond 22 is a sign of them wanting to keep momentum on heat on the franchise, just in case the public lose interest.
P.S. How the hell can Martin Campbell sit in that conference, endorsing Craig, given his and Haggis's comments about casting a 28-year old just last week? It seems to me like Craig was the only name that Sony would willingly compromise on. On a certain level I'm pleased for Craig becuase he has quietly been building a name for himself and has a couple of projects on the horizon that will put him 'out there' in movieland prior to being Bond. And opportunites like the chance to play Bond are once-in-a-lifetime, so I don't blame him for jumping at the chance.
Prediction here: Michael Vaughan to direct Bond 22.
I feel really sorry for Daniel Craig, he has been put in a really difficult situation. Nobody disputes his acting ability or on-screen charisma, but Eon are playing risk with over 30 years of history and cinemagoers perceptions.
It would have made more sense for Eon to pick up where the Jinx movie left off and create an alternative spy franchise. Weren't the Harry Palmer films done by Broccolli and Saltzman back in the day? Daniel Craig would be a perfect Harry Palmer, and everybody would have looked forward to seeing him in a spy franchise doing cold-hearted, unfeeling spy-derring-do.
But this is freaking James Bond we're talking about, and it wasn't even broken, depending on your persepective. Why do the Bond films need to compete with Bourne? There's room for both, why so scared? And why the obsession with "....begins!" Yes, the Batman and Superman franchises were dead, so it makes sense to restart them, but Bond as a franchise is unique. All Eon are going to succeed is make the Bond movies the same as other movies we might see coming from other studios.
Eon have already compromised on their new Bond vision by casting a more mature actor. I think Casino Royale will do OK business, just because of the curiosity factor, it's the 2nd one that will tell the real story, and the audience's appetite for Craig's Bond. I think the fact they are rushing into pre-production on Bond 22 is a sign of them wanting to keep momentum on heat on the franchise, just in case the public lose interest.
P.S. How the hell can Martin Campbell sit in that conference, endorsing Craig, given his and Haggis's comments about casting a 28-year old just last week? It seems to me like Craig was the only name that Sony would willingly compromise on. On a certain level I'm pleased for Craig becuase he has quietly been building a name for himself and has a couple of projects on the horizon that will put him 'out there' in movieland prior to being Bond. And opportunites like the chance to play Bond are once-in-a-lifetime, so I don't blame him for jumping at the chance.
Prediction here: Michael Vaughan to direct Bond 22.
Am I the only one who thinks Criag looks like a rougher Sean Connery. And the blond hair isn't that big a deal because I don't care what people say, but Roger Moore's hair is blond and I thought Moore was an exceptional Bond. And at least Craig's casting isn't as bad as say having Meatloaf playing Renard. "Aren't you all glad we didn't end up with Meatloaf playing Renard."
It's not the blond hair, shoot I'd give anything if it had been Ewan McGregor and he's got light hair, its his ugliness and commoness. He has the face of a villian or a thug, certainly not anyone that a woman would turn to look at unless it was to run the other away. I was all for a new Bond, thought Brosnan was too old, but even he's more attractive than this and he's 54.
Also how can you do a Bond Begins with someone who looks to be in his mid to late forties? I'm truly surprised and confused by this choice and will protest the only way I can by not being there on opening day or weekend. I'll see it, I havent not seen a Bond movie in the theater since I was twenty years old, but it doesnt really seem like it's Bond anymore. I dont even recoginize this knomish guy as the Bond I love. It truly seems like some other spy series is beginning and the one I love is ending for good.
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,699MI6 Agent
I just checked my calender and it's not April 1st. I pinched myself to see if I was dreaming, I wasn't. I guess I have to accept DC as JB.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
Great observation, and I agree. I'm all for removing all traces of Bond from "Bond 21" and just make it a Harry Palmer film. Since Palmer is a working-class spy (one I can personally relate better with, BTW), it fits in better with Craig, doesn't it?
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Am I the only one who thinks Criag looks like a rougher Sean Connery. And the blond hair isn't that big a deal because I don't care what people say, but Roger Moore's hair is blond and I thought Moore was an exceptional Bond. And at least Craig's casting isn't as bad as say having Meatloaf playing Renard. "Aren't you all glad we didn't end up with Meatloaf playing Renard."
It's not the blond hair, shoot I'd give anything if it had been Ewan McGregor and he's got light hair, its his ugliness and commoness. He has the face of a villian or a thug, certainly not anyone that a woman would turn to look at unless it was to run the other away. I was all for a new Bond, thought Brosnan was too old, but even he's more attractive than this and he's 54.
Also how can you do a Bond Begins with someone who looks to be in his mid to late forties? I'm truly surprised and confused by this choice and will protest the only way I can by not being there on opening day or weekend. I'll see it, I havent not seen a Bond movie in the theater since I was twenty years old, but it doesnt really seem like it's Bond anymore. I dont even recoginize this knomish guy as the Bond I love. It truly seems like some other spy series is beginning and the one I love is ending for good.
A ladies perspective is what we need and you certainly make some valid points, Bond as we all know should be someone men can project themselves into and someone all women want to be with. These two points are vital i think.
There is nothing like mass 'Doom and Gloom'. It's contagious. It seems like so many of you are not willing to give Mr. Craig half a chance, or a quarter chance, or anything. People gave Michael Keaton alot of crap when he was picked to play Bruce Wayne/Batman....and then he turned out to be great. I think Daniel Craig will turn out fine. I'm more than willing to give him all the chances in the world...even though I would have picked Hugh Jackman.
Craig has never been my favourite, but I'm tired of all the negativism about him. Look at Empire Online and read both the staff and the members of the public's reactions and you wouldn't believe it was about the same man. But the staff of Empire has no idea about film, right? People write about Craig commenting on the boatride as "scary", but according to the media he wasn't talking about the boat but the new job. Craig isn't short. Even in Norway six feet isn't short. I've been to England twise, and I barely saw a man that hight!
Craig is blond, but Roger Moore's hair wasn't much darker. They say Craig is ugly, But Kate Moss and Sienna Miller disagrees! He isn't model handsome, but his ruggesness is far better than Henry "boyband" Cavill. Some say this will be the end of the franchise, but I don't think even they believe it themselves. "Batman and Robin" was horrible, but not even that dissaster stopped the Batman franchise. Batman isn't even nearly as established as a filmfranchise as Bond, and CR can't possibly be half as bad as "Batman and Robin". Give Craig one chance. If CR is bad, I'll join the campaign against him. But now I'm looking forward to the movie.
scaramanga1The English RivieraPosts: 845Chief of Staff
Craig has never been my favourite, but I'm tired of all the negativism about him. Look at Empire Online and read both the staff and the members of the public's reactions and you wouldn't believe it was about the same man. But the staff of Empire has no idea about film, right? People write about Craig commenting on the boatride as "scary", but according to the media he wasn't talking about the boat but the new job. Craig isn't short. Even in Norway six feet isn't short. I've been to England twise, and I barely saw a man that hight!
Craig is blond, but Roger Moore's hair wasn't much darker. They say Craig is ugly, But Kate Moss and Sienna Miller disagrees! He isn't model handsome, but his ruggesness is far better than Henry "boyband" Cavill. Some say this will be the end of the franchise, but I don't think even they believe it themselves. "Batman and Robin" was horrible, but not even that dissaster stopped the Batman franchise. Batman isn't even nearly as established as a filmfranchise as Bond, and CR can't possibly be half as bad as "Batman and Robin". Give Craig one chance. If CR is bad, I'll join the campaign against him. But now I'm looking forward to the movie.
Well said -I totally agree.
SeanConnery007The Bond Archive - London, EngPosts: 169MI6 Agent
I'd waited for at least a year for the announcement of the new James Bond 007 in 'Casino Royale'.
I was not impressed with the names offered out to me. After DAD, I thought this was it - they'll cast some 'hotshot' American and the series will fall down from cinema grace.
October 14th. 2005. The announcement arrives. The New James Bond 007, grittier, darker and more BlOND then we've known before.
DANIEL CRAIG.
At first I was disappointed. I was hoping for a surprise from EON. Then I took in Daniel Craig. Then I saw the picture of jamesbond.com, and I was taken aback. This is what I want from James Bond, I said to myself. I'd been terribly disappointed with Mr Brosnan, and Casino Royale was top of my wish list.
Daniel Craig will make Bond, Bond. For the sake of Ian Fleming, I hope this works.
It is the script writers, the producers, Sony, and the general public that I am worried about.
Give Daniel Craig a chance. This comes from someone that was 'washing his hands' of a series I thought had failed me after 40 years. DAD cut me, I want Casino Royale to heal it, and I think if we get behind Craig, its looking good for Bond21 and Beyond.
The darker 'twisted' sounding Bond theme on the website is brilliant for Craig's grittier darker Bond(David Arnold's work??). My only critiscism so far, is the CR Logo!!
Is this the films title logo then, or just a 'mock-up' for the press release, because I think it looks awfully tacky.
Does anyone else want to boycott the movie? I honestly just want to throw up everywhere. I'm sorry if that seems crude but today the Bond franchise(which it seems has been on life support for 2 years) is dead.
I think that all the negative comments here are shocking. The guy has only been the official 007 for a few hours and he's been shot to hell by the fans. I think it is only fair to pass judgement on the guy once we have seen CR, then if he was a poor choice, fair enough. But he has even shot his first scene yet. I think the fans should give him a break. Having said that, Clive Owen was MY first choice, but I don't know enough about Daniel Craig to say whether he would be better/worse than Owen, or anyon else. Naturally my first choice would be Brosnan, but as Craig is now the official 007, I will accept it and eagerly await the new film.
Does anyone else want to boycott the movie? I honestly just want to throw up everywhere. I'm sorry if that seems crude but today the Bond franchise(which it seems has been on life support for 2 years) is dead.
As i mentioned on a previous thread what is done is done... i am going to reserve judgement and wait patiently and go and see the film when it comes out at the cinema, i love bond films and in all honesty nothing will deter me from watching the latest. I hope we are all proved wrong and this film is first rate.
'...exceptionally fine shot...'
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
Does anyone else want to boycott the movie? I honestly just want to throw up everywhere. I'm sorry if that seems crude but today the Bond franchise(which it seems has been on life support for 2 years) is dead.
No thanks. I'm there on opening night, hoping for the best. I'm over my shock now, and looking toward the future. I recommend others do the same...lest you go mad .
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
What is with this nonsense from people saying we should support him because he has the role now as though he was their own child. My god, if my kid turned out this ugly I would shoot him out of his own misery. Open your eyes people. This guy looks like he's been drinking heavily since he was 6 years old and already looks like he's pushing 50 yet he's only 37. EON already made the mistake of casting a goon for the part once with Lazenby how many years ago and yet make the same mistake twice. Why would anyone be that hard up to watch a 007 movie with this puke in it?
Even in Norway six feet isn't short. I've been to England twise, and I barely saw a man that hight!
Craig is blond, but Roger Moore's hair wasn't much darker. They say Craig is ugly, But Kate Moss and Sienna Miller disagrees! He isn't model handsome, but his ruggesness is far better than Henry "boyband" Cavill. Some say this will be the end of the franchise, but I don't think even they believe it themselves. "Batman and Robin" was horrible, but not even that dissaster stopped the Batman franchise. Batman isn't even nearly as established as a filmfranchise as Bond, and CR can't possibly be half as bad as "Batman and Robin". Give Craig one chance. If CR is bad, I'll join the campaign against him. But now I'm looking forward to the movie.
Yes I'm negative, I'm diappointed and completely confused why this choice was made. Craig is unattractive, Kate Moss isn't someone I'd say has the best taste in men even when sober and Sienna Miller is up for the part of Vesper so she's hardly unbiased so holding these two up as examples of women who say they think he's sexy isn't much proof of anything. Besides I'd think that Eon would want to appeal to the average woman who is likely to see these movies, not women who are seeking publicity or up for a role in the movie in question.
Besides Craig is not 6' tall, I keep seeing this and it's so not true. If you are going by his official site they are padding it alot. Did you see the picture of him standing next to Brosnan? OR standing next to Sienna in Layer Cake, the guy is small. However, his size doesnt bother me nearly as much as his general unattractiveness though. Every movie I've seen him in he's is very unphotogenic or downright ugly to the point of being distracting.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
People gave Michael Keaton alot of crap when he was picked to play Bruce Wayne/Batman....and then he turned out to be great.
No, I still think he's too ugly of a short runt to have played Bruce Wayne.
If "negatism" toward Craig is contagious due to people jumping on the bandwagon, that's not my problem. My concerns are independently founded, and not only do I have the right to have them, but by deeds and actions that define an individual, I know Bond, just as some video game enthusiasts possess a hacker's aptitude to be the best, how sports fans know the birthdates of the most obscure ball player, or how hip-hop fanatics know the words of every top 40 lyric, or thrashers and x-gamers in search of the most forbidding geometric structure in the world to defy with their skateboards, Bond has been my constant hobby and interest for a lenght of time that's twice the age of many Bond fans here. Bond is very near and dear to my heart, and nobody is in the position to judge me for feeling the way I do.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
What is with this nonsense from people saying we should support him because he has the role now as though he was their own child. My god, if my kid turned out this ugly I would shoot him out of his own misery. Open your eyes people. This guy looks like he's been drinking heavily since he was 6 years old and already looks like he's pushing 50 yet he's only 37. EON already made the mistake of casting a goon for the part once with Lazenby how many years ago and yet make the same mistake twice. Why would anyone be that hard up to watch a 007 movie with this puke in it?
Guess that means an extra seat for my wife in the theatre on opening night...
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
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
Well Daniel Craig is the cherry on top of the suckfest which could be Casino Royale. Moneypenny and Q won't be in the film, Judy Dench may still play M, he'll be playing texas hold em'. *sigh* I'll still be there to see it opening day, but I do have a lot of doubts.
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
Even in Norway six feet isn't short. I've been to England twise, and I barely saw a man that hight!
Craig is blond, but Roger Moore's hair wasn't much darker. They say Craig is ugly, But Kate Moss and Sienna Miller disagrees! He isn't model handsome, but his ruggesness is far better than Henry "boyband" Cavill. Some say this will be the end of the franchise, but I don't think even they believe it themselves. "Batman and Robin" was horrible, but not even that dissaster stopped the Batman franchise. Batman isn't even nearly as established as a filmfranchise as Bond, and CR can't possibly be half as bad as "Batman and Robin". Give Craig one chance. If CR is bad, I'll join the campaign against him. But now I'm looking forward to the movie.
Yes I'm negative, I'm diappointed and completely confused why this choice was made. Craig is unattractive, Kate Moss isn't someone I'd say has the best taste in men even when sober and Sienna Miller is up for the part of Vesper so she's hardly unbiased so holding these two up as examples of women who say they think he's sexy isn't much proof of anything. Besides I'd think that Eon would want to appeal to the average woman who is likely to see these movies, not women who are seeking publicity or up for a role in the movie in question.
Besides Craig is not 6' tall, I keep seeing this and it's so not true. If you are going by his official site they are padding it alot. Did you see the picture of him standing next to Brosnan? OR standing next to Sienna in Layer Cake, the guy is small. However, his size doesnt bother me nearly as much as his general unattractiveness though. Every movie I've seen him in he's is very unphotogenic or downright ugly to the point of being distracting.
Maybe today is just a bad dream lol
I am baffled by the choice, but it seems to have been made. Just got to think postive now. hope the script and film itself is good and hope Craig somehow pulls it off.
Wasnt John Gavin Officially unveiled as Bond only for connery to return weeks before shooting Diamonds are forever
Well, it's official now. If we like it or not Craig will be the next James Bond.
I must say I'm disappointed. EXTREMELY disappointed with EON's decision. I would have loved to see Pierce doing his 5th one. In fact, they aren't many actors who were in the race that I'd liked less than Craig. Craig may be a fine actor (I've seen only Tomb Raider) but he just isn't Bond for me. The official Bond picture that they've released doesn't impress me at all. I don't consider him "ugly" (no one is ugly who's considered to play Bond) and - quite frankly - am a little bit disturbed about some people's hostile postings on this board. I hope - for his sake - that he doesn't read opinions on "Fan" boards.
Now that he IS cast, I wish him all the best for the most famous role in movie history. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and will go see CR on its opening weekend. I'm too much of a Bond fan to give it up. I'll try as much as I can to be open minded and just HOPE that Babs and Mickey saw something in him that I don't see (yet).
As for the rumours (or hints) that they already working on a script for Bond 22, this makes perfectly sense. First, they want to push their new Bond so that people get accustomed to him and second, they just don't want to miss the opportunity to realease a film in 007. Therefore I don't think that there will be a 2 year gap between CR and 22.
Again, congratulations, Daniel Craig, I wish you all the best - you're going to need it!
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
My position is I'm not happy with today announcement. Only the fact that I'm a Bond fan am I reluctantly coming to terms with what I call a travesty. I could care less if no one agreed with me.
Maybe Craig will work hard enough to sway my opinion but not today.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,993Quartermasters
If "negatism" toward Craig is contagious due to people jumping on the bandwagon, that's not my problem. My concerns are independently founded, and not only do I have the right to have them, but by deeds and actions that define an individual, I know Bond, just as some video game enthusiasts possess a hacker's aptitude to be the best, how sports fans know the birthdates of the most obscure ball player, or how hip-hop fanatics know the words of every top 40 lyric, or thrashers and x-gamers in search of the most forbidding geometric structure in the world to defy with their skateboards, Bond has been my constant hobby and interest for a lenght of time that's twice the age of many Bond fans here. Bond is very near and dear to my heart, and nobody is in the position to judge me for feeling the way I do.
Your expertise on the subject of Bond is evident in every post you make, super, and that's coming from an equally devoted Bond fan (born the year Dr. No was released!).
I think it's completely fair to air our doubts about this fellow. Hell, I've got plenty of my own, and we'll get to all of them, I've no doubt...
I just can't bring myself to be apocalyptic about this on the day of the announcement, though. I'm fully prepared to let them actually roll cameras on the production before I bring forth a verdict.
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
For me it is a sad day...and not only because its raining like crazy here - but because we all know Craig is cast as Bond...to me it just doesn't make sense - the guy does not fit the role of Bond...seeing pictures from the announcement earlier today I could only cringe as I watch Craig sit next to Barbara...as she STARES at him...I really hope shes happy, because it seems a vast majority of us arent at all.
BTW - I wonder what security was like to try n keep Brosnan out...I can picture him being along side a news reporter, and at the right moment jumping over the table and screaming "The role is MINE!!" as he's tackled by a few security guards
What is with this nonsense from people saying we should support him because he has the role now as though he was their own child. My god, if my kid turned out this ugly I would shoot him out of his own misery. Open your eyes people. This guy looks like he's been drinking heavily since he was 6 years old and already looks like he's pushing 50 yet he's only 37. EON already made the mistake of casting a goon for the part once with Lazenby how many years ago and yet make the same mistake twice. Why would anyone be that hard up to watch a 007 movie with this puke in it?
LOL, thanks I'm now over my shock, and in good humour.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
For me it is a sad day...and not only because its raining like crazy here - but because we all know Craig is cast as Bond...to me it just doesn't make sense - the guy does not fit the role of Bond...seeing pictures from the announcement earlier today I could only cringe as I watch Craig sit next to Barbara...as she STARES at him...I really hope shes happy, because it seems a vast majority of us arent at all.
BTW - I wonder what security was like to try n keep Brosnan out...I can picture him being along side a news reporter, and at the right moment jumping over the table and screaming "The role is MINE!!" as he's tackled by a few security guards
) I'm really picturing that last part.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
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.
Comments
I feel really sorry for Daniel Craig, he has been put in a really difficult situation. Nobody disputes his acting ability or on-screen charisma, but Eon are playing risk with over 30 years of history and cinemagoers perceptions.
It would have made more sense for Eon to pick up where the Jinx movie left off and create an alternative spy franchise. Weren't the Harry Palmer films done by Broccolli and Saltzman back in the day? Daniel Craig would be a perfect Harry Palmer, and everybody would have looked forward to seeing him in a spy franchise doing cold-hearted, unfeeling spy-derring-do.
But this is freaking James Bond we're talking about, and it wasn't even broken, depending on your persepective. Why do the Bond films need to compete with Bourne? There's room for both, why so scared? And why the obsession with "....begins!" Yes, the Batman and Superman franchises were dead, so it makes sense to restart them, but Bond as a franchise is unique. All Eon are going to succeed is make the Bond movies the same as other movies we might see coming from other studios.
Eon have already compromised on their new Bond vision by casting a more mature actor. I think Casino Royale will do OK business, just because of the curiosity factor, it's the 2nd one that will tell the real story, and the audience's appetite for Craig's Bond. I think the fact they are rushing into pre-production on Bond 22 is a sign of them wanting to keep momentum on heat on the franchise, just in case the public lose interest.
P.S. How the hell can Martin Campbell sit in that conference, endorsing Craig, given his and Haggis's comments about casting a 28-year old just last week? It seems to me like Craig was the only name that Sony would willingly compromise on. On a certain level I'm pleased for Craig becuase he has quietly been building a name for himself and has a couple of projects on the horizon that will put him 'out there' in movieland prior to being Bond. And opportunites like the chance to play Bond are once-in-a-lifetime, so I don't blame him for jumping at the chance.
Prediction here: Michael Vaughan to direct Bond 22.
Saltzman made the Palmer films.
It's not the blond hair, shoot I'd give anything if it had been Ewan McGregor and he's got light hair, its his ugliness and commoness. He has the face of a villian or a thug, certainly not anyone that a woman would turn to look at unless it was to run the other away. I was all for a new Bond, thought Brosnan was too old, but even he's more attractive than this and he's 54.
Also how can you do a Bond Begins with someone who looks to be in his mid to late forties? I'm truly surprised and confused by this choice and will protest the only way I can by not being there on opening day or weekend. I'll see it, I havent not seen a Bond movie in the theater since I was twenty years old, but it doesnt really seem like it's Bond anymore. I dont even recoginize this knomish guy as the Bond I love. It truly seems like some other spy series is beginning and the one I love is ending for good.
Great observation, and I agree. I'm all for removing all traces of Bond from "Bond 21" and just make it a Harry Palmer film. Since Palmer is a working-class spy (one I can personally relate better with, BTW), it fits in better with Craig, doesn't it?
A ladies perspective is what we need and you certainly make some valid points, Bond as we all know should be someone men can project themselves into and someone all women want to be with. These two points are vital i think.
And more importantly, what else has he been in that I might know him from?!
I just don't know actors very well so by asking this I can form an opinion as to whether or not I think he will be a good Bond!
I have to say I'm not encouraged by all the negative opinions here, such a shame if they are justified as Brosnan was so good!
Did you check and see if you were in the Twilight Zone? :P
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
He is from Chester.
xman25
Craig is blond, but Roger Moore's hair wasn't much darker. They say Craig is ugly, But Kate Moss and Sienna Miller disagrees! He isn't model handsome, but his ruggesness is far better than Henry "boyband" Cavill. Some say this will be the end of the franchise, but I don't think even they believe it themselves. "Batman and Robin" was horrible, but not even that dissaster stopped the Batman franchise. Batman isn't even nearly as established as a filmfranchise as Bond, and CR can't possibly be half as bad as "Batman and Robin". Give Craig one chance. If CR is bad, I'll join the campaign against him. But now I'm looking forward to the movie.
Well said -I totally agree.
I was not impressed with the names offered out to me. After DAD, I thought this was it - they'll cast some 'hotshot' American and the series will fall down from cinema grace.
October 14th. 2005. The announcement arrives. The New James Bond 007, grittier, darker and more BlOND then we've known before.
DANIEL CRAIG.
At first I was disappointed. I was hoping for a surprise from EON. Then I took in Daniel Craig. Then I saw the picture of jamesbond.com, and I was taken aback. This is what I want from James Bond, I said to myself. I'd been terribly disappointed with Mr Brosnan, and Casino Royale was top of my wish list.
Daniel Craig will make Bond, Bond. For the sake of Ian Fleming, I hope this works.
It is the script writers, the producers, Sony, and the general public that I am worried about.
Give Daniel Craig a chance. This comes from someone that was 'washing his hands' of a series I thought had failed me after 40 years. DAD cut me, I want Casino Royale to heal it, and I think if we get behind Craig, its looking good for Bond21 and Beyond.
The darker 'twisted' sounding Bond theme on the website is brilliant for Craig's grittier darker Bond(David Arnold's work??). My only critiscism so far, is the CR Logo!!
Is this the films title logo then, or just a 'mock-up' for the press release, because I think it looks awfully tacky.
As i mentioned on a previous thread what is done is done... i am going to reserve judgement and wait patiently and go and see the film when it comes out at the cinema, i love bond films and in all honesty nothing will deter me from watching the latest. I hope we are all proved wrong and this film is first rate.
No thanks. I'm there on opening night, hoping for the best. I'm over my shock now, and looking toward the future. I recommend others do the same...lest you go mad
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Yes I'm negative, I'm diappointed and completely confused why this choice was made. Craig is unattractive, Kate Moss isn't someone I'd say has the best taste in men even when sober and Sienna Miller is up for the part of Vesper so she's hardly unbiased so holding these two up as examples of women who say they think he's sexy isn't much proof of anything. Besides I'd think that Eon would want to appeal to the average woman who is likely to see these movies, not women who are seeking publicity or up for a role in the movie in question.
Besides Craig is not 6' tall, I keep seeing this and it's so not true. If you are going by his official site they are padding it alot. Did you see the picture of him standing next to Brosnan? OR standing next to Sienna in Layer Cake, the guy is small. However, his size doesnt bother me nearly as much as his general unattractiveness though. Every movie I've seen him in he's is very unphotogenic or downright ugly to the point of being distracting.
No, I still think he's too ugly of a short runt to have played Bruce Wayne.
If "negatism" toward Craig is contagious due to people jumping on the bandwagon, that's not my problem. My concerns are independently founded, and not only do I have the right to have them, but by deeds and actions that define an individual, I know Bond, just as some video game enthusiasts possess a hacker's aptitude to be the best, how sports fans know the birthdates of the most obscure ball player, or how hip-hop fanatics know the words of every top 40 lyric, or thrashers and x-gamers in search of the most forbidding geometric structure in the world to defy with their skateboards, Bond has been my constant hobby and interest for a lenght of time that's twice the age of many Bond fans here. Bond is very near and dear to my heart, and nobody is in the position to judge me for feeling the way I do.
Guess that means an extra seat for my wife in the theatre on opening night...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
-Roger Moore
Maybe today is just a bad dream lol
I am baffled by the choice, but it seems to have been made. Just got to think postive now. hope the script and film itself is good and hope Craig somehow pulls it off.
Wasnt John Gavin Officially unveiled as Bond only for connery to return weeks before shooting Diamonds are forever
I must say I'm disappointed. EXTREMELY disappointed with EON's decision. I would have loved to see Pierce doing his 5th one. In fact, they aren't many actors who were in the race that I'd liked less than Craig. Craig may be a fine actor (I've seen only Tomb Raider) but he just isn't Bond for me. The official Bond picture that they've released doesn't impress me at all. I don't consider him "ugly" (no one is ugly who's considered to play Bond) and - quite frankly - am a little bit disturbed about some people's hostile postings on this board. I hope - for his sake - that he doesn't read opinions on "Fan" boards.
Now that he IS cast, I wish him all the best for the most famous role in movie history. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and will go see CR on its opening weekend. I'm too much of a Bond fan to give it up. I'll try as much as I can to be open minded and just HOPE that Babs and Mickey saw something in him that I don't see (yet).
As for the rumours (or hints) that they already working on a script for Bond 22, this makes perfectly sense. First, they want to push their new Bond so that people get accustomed to him and second, they just don't want to miss the opportunity to realease a film in 007. Therefore I don't think that there will be a 2 year gap between CR and 22.
Again, congratulations, Daniel Craig, I wish you all the best - you're going to need it!
Maybe Craig will work hard enough to sway my opinion but not today.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Your expertise on the subject of Bond is evident in every post you make, super, and that's coming from an equally devoted Bond fan (born the year Dr. No was released!).
I think it's completely fair to air our doubts about this fellow. Hell, I've got plenty of my own, and we'll get to all of them, I've no doubt...
I just can't bring myself to be apocalyptic about this on the day of the announcement, though. I'm fully prepared to let them actually roll cameras on the production before I bring forth a verdict.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
BTW - I wonder what security was like to try n keep Brosnan out...I can picture him being along side a news reporter, and at the right moment jumping over the table and screaming "The role is MINE!!" as he's tackled by a few security guards
LOL, thanks I'm now over my shock, and in good humour.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
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.