179 replies to this topic

[Dr.Mirakle32]

I know he was juts starting out in CR, but I still have a hard time accepting him as a classic Bond. Here are a few things I would do with Craig in Bond 22:

His Hair: It's already too late for his lazy to color it (from a continuity perspective, although he could do it for a special mission,) so the least he can do is grow it out a little bit and put in some gel to give him a classic Connery look. Craig looks better with slightly longer hair anyway.

His eyebrows: The man has NO FREAKIN eyebrows. That ontop of his piercing cold eyes is just creepy. He should darken them abit. Not dark to the point where they are jet black and the change is obvious, but dark enough so where he can show emotions with.

The Bond theme: While not Craig's fault, it would help to see David Arnold go all out with the Bond theme in Bond 22, so that we can be reminded that this is indeed the same 007 we all know and love.
Plus, the John Barry 007 Adventure theme would be cool to hear again in a lighter action moment.


These are just a few things I would do to have Craig seem more like "James Bond-007" than a badass action hero who just happens to be called "James Bond."

[lafemmefantome]

His Hair: It's already too late for his lazy [censored]to color it (from a continuity perspective, although he could do it for a special mission,) so the least he can do is grow it out a little bit and put in some gel to give him a classic Connery look. Craig looks better with slightly longer hair anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean by coloring it? I think his hair was fine. If you watch the film, you can see that by the end of the story, his hair has grown. I don't know if I want a classic Connery look. (I have nothing against Connery, just to clarify) I'd rather Craig have his own look instead of copying.

His eyebrows: The man has NO FREAKIN eyebrows. That ontop of his piercing cold eyes is just creepy. He should darken them abit. Not dark to the point where they are jet black and the change is obvious, but dark enough so where he can show emotions with.

I think this was addressed in terms of lighting. So it's really not a question per se of darkening but rather making sure the lighting best suits him.

The Bond theme: While not Craig's fault, it would help to see David Arnold go all out with the Bond theme in Bond 22, so that we can be reminded that this is indeed the same 007 we all know and love.
Plus, the John Barry 007 Adventure theme would be cool to hear again in a lighter action moment.


These are just a few things I would do to have Craig seem more like "James Bond-007" than a badass action hero who just happens to be called "James Bond."

It's hard for me to comment there since I haven't paid that much attention to the theme. However, I think the idea is to go forward into the future rather than revisit the past.

lafemme

[Dr.Mirakle32]

His Hair: It's already too late for his lazy [censored]to color it (from a continuity perspective, although he could do it for a special mission,) so the least he can do is grow it out a little bit and put in some gel to give him a classic Connery look. Craig looks better with slightly longer hair anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean by coloring it? I think his hair was fine. If you watch the film, you can see that by the end of the story, his hair has grown. I don't know if I want a classic Connery look. (I have nothing against Connery, just to clarify) I'd rather Craig have his own look instead of copying.

I liked the way Craig had his hair during the PR interviews for CR in November. It was much closer to the classic Connery look than the short-short cut we got in the film. If he would have it more like that with a little bit of gel, he would look great.

[yolt13]

Arnold deliberately left the Bond theme out of much of his score for CR, to emphasize that this man isn't YET the Bond we've come to know and love over the years. He still has a lot of growing, maturing and learning to go before he reaches even the DR. NO level of confidence and competence. The decision to withhold the traditional theme was also made in order to make that final scene (in which, as lafemme noted, his hair has grown out and is more "Bond-like") more impactful.

The look, the lack of girls in the opening title sequence, the omission of the theme... all of this was part of a concerted effort to show Bond before he "became" Bond. He'll definitely be more recognizable in his second turn.

[JimmyBond]

Here's an idea, let's have Craig be his own Bond. I don't want Craig to try and mimic anyone else, I want him to play the role his way, that means his own look as well.

As for the Bond theme is concerned, the less the better. It should only really pop up when Bond does something really cool, it should never never be the primary action theme for the film.

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Here's an idea, let's have Craig be his own Bond. I don't want Craig to try and mimic anyone else, I want him to play the role his way, that means his own look as well.

You know what? Your absolutely right! Screw it. Maybe he should just stop wearing tuxedos and suits altogether too since that's what they did in the old movies. We don't want Craig to be known as that other handsome debonair James Bond right?

Craig shouldn't mimic anyone, and he should do his own thing, but classic style has always been part of James Bond and has been consistent with all of the previous actors.

[lafemmefantome]

You know what? Your absolutely right! Screw it. Maybe he should just stop wearing tuxedos and suits altogether too since that's what they did in the old movies. We don't want Craig to be known as that other handsome debonair James Bond right?

Craig shouldn't mimic anyone, and he should do his own thing, but classic style has always been part of James Bond and has been consistent with all of the previous actors.

Ah, but the difference is now you're stating classic style and before, the reference made gave me and perhaps others the impression of Connery style. Sometimes wording and nuances just don't come across. The classic style is important along with what Craig brings to the role.

Now, if you want him to not wear tuxedos and suits, does that mean he's in those swim trunks again, cause from a woman's perspective, that might not be so bad.

lafemme

[JimmyBond]

Here's an idea, let's have Craig be his own Bond. I don't want Craig to try and mimic anyone else, I want him to play the role his way, that means his own look as well.

You know what? Your absolutely right! Screw it. Maybe he should just stop wearing tuxedos and suits altogether too since that's what they did in the old movies. We don't want Craig to be known as that other handsome debonair James Bond right?

Craig shouldn't mimic anyone, and he should do his own thing, but classic style has always been part of James Bond and has been consistent with all of the previous actors.

Pardon me, but that's not what you said in you original post. You were mentioing to change Craig's looks so he'd be closer to Connery, considering all the prior Bond's resembled Connery in some way (the part in the hair was usually the same) this is not a bad argument. It's just that we don't need that anymore, I'm tired of the Bond actors being judged on how they look in comparison to the old Bond's. With Craig, it seemed the producers were saying: "We're not falling into an old trap of casting based on type, we're casting based on skill. Craig more than showed us he's a great actor, let's just let him do his thing.


And honestly? I really wouldnt be too broken up if Bond started dressing down a bit more (not losing his style, just losing his tuxes). He really should only wear them when the situation calls for it.

[K1Bond007]

His Hair: It's already too late for his lazy to color it (from a continuity perspective, although he could do it for a special mission,) so the least he can do is grow it out a little bit and put in some gel to give him a classic Connery look. Craig looks better with slightly longer hair anyway.

Who gives a !? Maybe you have it backwards: maybe Bond dyed his hair blond for a while. We'll never know. People do do that, you know?

[Vauxhall]

And honestly? I really wouldnt be too broken up if Bond started dressing down a bit more (not losing his style, just losing his tuxes). He really should only wear them when the situation calls for it.

Agreed. Bond can remain stylish whilst still retaining the look of a real-life MI6 agent. It would be unrealistic to expect a spy to operate in a dangerous area whilst always dressed impeccably, thus explaining my approval for what Bond was wearing during the Madagascar scenes. He needs to blend in with his surroundings, and always wearing a tuxedo would clearly not achieve that!! A balance must be reached between reality and the tradition of Bond. I expect that every Bond fan would have a different opinion of how important one is in relation to the other.

[JimmyBond]

A balance must be reached between reality and the tradition of Bond. I expect that every Bond fan would have a different opinion of how important one is in relation to the other.

Indeed. When pictures of Bond during the Madagascar scene showed up, a lot of people were appalled at the clothes Bond was wearing. I however was intrigued, it had been a long time since we have seen Bond that dressed down, I was curious to see how this new realistic Bond would play out. I was (and am still not) disappointed.

[Dr.Mirakle32]

But when is being "original" too much? I agree Bond should dress for the occassion (I don't expect him to be wearing a tux while mountain climbing in the Himalayas), but if one gets too far removed from "type", when does it change who the character is?

It would be like finding the next Superman, and casting a 5'8" red headed Irishman in the role. The producers decide not to use hair coloring or a fake accent, and to leave him the way he is because he is a good actor and that is all that matters. Wouldn't that in essence up the character? Another good example is when Jon Peters was working on SUPERMAN 5. He wanted to make Superman hip and edgy for a whole new genteration. He wanted to lose the suit because it was "too fag," give Superman a hot sports car, take away his flying abilities, and have him fight a giant ing Spider in the third act. Sure it could be seen as new and fresh from the same old, same old, but it isn't what the character is about.


I am not saying Craig or the Broccoli's are doing this now, but a few years down the line you never know what the producers will try.

Edited by Dr.Mirakle32, 28 January 2007 - 05:44 AM.

[JimmyBond]

But when is being "original" too much? I agree Bond should dress for the occassion (I don't expect him to be wearing a tux while mountain climbing in the Himalayas), but if one gets too far removed from "type", when does it change who the character is?

You're really talking to the wrong guy here. I don't think they can ever go too far with originality. Personally I wish they'd throw the whole Bond formula out the window and start really experimenting with the series. Knowing that they won't do that, I'm happy with the changes (small they may be) that they made with Casino Royale:

-Casting against type for Bond, and getting an actor who completely made the role his own the second he appeared on screen.

-No Moneypenny or Q. They are a crux of the series, keep them away.

-No gunbarrel (ok ok, this is one thing I want to see return). But it was refreshing, and a bit daring to open the movie the way they did.

-Reducing the appearances of the Bond theme. I think Arnold should utlize his own themes for the action, the Bond theme was always meant to be used only when Bond did something really cool.

As for the tux, I can cite three Bond films where Bond never wears one (FRWL, YOLT, and LALD). I don't mind Bond wearing a tux if he's going somewhere that calls for it, but lets not put him in one just cause he's Bond. Plus your Superman analogy does not work with Bond, Superman is a unique character from Clark Kent, hence the different costume. When Bond puts on his tux he's still Bond, alternately if Bond isnt wearing a tux he's still Bond as well. Let the character speak for itself, not the image of the character.

[tdalton]

His Hair: It's already too late for his lazy [censored]to color it (from a continuity perspective, although he could do it for a special mission,) so the least he can do is grow it out a little bit and put in some gel to give him a classic Connery look. Craig looks better with slightly longer hair anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean by coloring it? I think his hair was fine. If you watch the film, you can see that by the end of the story, his hair has grown. I don't know if I want a classic Connery look. (I have nothing against Connery, just to clarify) I'd rather Craig have his own look instead of copying.

I liked the way Craig had his hair during the PR interviews for CR in November. It was much closer to the classic Connery look than the short-short cut we got in the film. If he would have it more like that with a little bit of gel, he would look great.

Agreed. I thought that the way he had his hair done in the press interviews leading up to CR (especially in the one he did with Matt Lauer on NBC) would be a great look for him to have as Bond in the next film.

[jaguar007]

I agree that Craig looks better with his hair slightly longer (like on the interview you mentioned). I don't think they should darken it, he does not look good with dark hair. Plus his hair is about the same color Roger Moore's was in his later films.

[DamnCoffee]

Give him the scar, and adapt more on his character.

[Zorin Industries]

Here's an idea, let's have Craig be his own Bond. I don't want Craig to try and mimic anyone else, I want him to play the role his way, that means his own look as well.

As for the Bond theme is concerned, the less the better. It should only really pop up when Bond does something really cool, it should never never be the primary action theme for the film.

I agree. Craig's tenure should not be hampered by pandering to fan-boys insisting on what tie he wears, what hand he opens a door with or which side he dresses on. Shaving all the fan-boy acoutrements away has intensified and vastly improved the character. Adding too many more Bondisms smacks of novelty, stifling nostalgia and very little understanding of the direction Eon have taken the franchise.

I would put up with a well-cast MONEYPENNY (and Barbara Broccoli's casting track record would satisfy that). However, I still need convincing that Q really needs to return in a world where we all have gadgets, communication devices and tracking systems.

Edited by Mister Asterix, 31 January 2007 - 09:34 PM.

[Krychek]

His Hair: It's already too late for his lazy to color it (from a continuity perspective, although he could do it for a special mission,) so the least he can do is grow it out a little bit and put in some gel to give him a classic Connery look. Craig looks better with slightly longer hair anyway.

Not a big fan of the Brylcream look. Besides, Sean Connery only look like that because back in the 60s, that's the kind of hairstyle that most men tend to have or at least at least Hollywood leading men did. But that was 40 or so years ago. Hairstyles have changed alot since then and as long as it's reasonable I'd prefer that Bond reflects those changes. To me having a short hair is within reasonable standard.

His eyebrows: The man has NO FREAKIN eyebrows. That ontop of his piercing cold eyes is just creepy. He should darken them abit. Not dark to the point where they are jet black and the change is obvious, but dark enough so where he can show emotions with.

He has no eyebrows? What an exaggeration. The man clearly has eyebrows because your next statement said that he has to darken them a bit. There's nothing to darken if he doesn't have them in the first place, is there? Plus, the effect of his piercing cold eyes are cool for me. He's a ruthless spy first and foremost before a playboy. And emotions rely on the actor's ability to act not on their external appearance. Samantha Morton shaved her eyebrows for her role in Minority Report and she danced around Tom Cruise when it comes to acting.

These are just a few things I would do to have Craig seem more like "James Bond-007" than a badass action hero who just happens to be called "James Bond."

There is more to Bond than his external appearance. It's his personality, mannerism, and character. All of which DC nailed perfectly well in CR. In fact, as a spy and a secret agent, I think realistically he'd have to change his appearance in several missions to avoid being recognised by his enemy.

Edited by Krychek, 28 January 2007 - 12:31 PM.

[Mr_Wint]

I liked the way Craig had his hair during the PR interviews for CR in November. It was much closer to the classic Connery look than the short-short cut we got in the film. If he would have it more like that with a little bit of gel, he would look great.

Exactly. Totally agree with that. Somewhat longer hair for Bond 22 and he looks fine.

[annita]

Let the character speak for itself, not the image of the character.

Thank you!!!

if the story needs Bond in a Tux, so be it, but to force the character to wear one just because he is Bond, then the film makers will be pondering to the image not the character.
what I am trying to say is that the story should be the force behind what Bond wears and how he acts, NOT what he should look like!.

[capungo]

Plus, the John Barry 007 Adventure theme would be cool to hear again in a lighter action moment.

While I agree that Arnold NEEDS to do a take on 007 one of these days(it's in the man's blood!!), I don't think it'd word as well as "light action moment" material, as we aren't likely to get any light action scenes for a while. Rather, I think it'd work better if he quieted it down and used it for a low key part like Bond sneaking about, looking for clues, etc. Actually I think this discussion needs its own thread

[Thunderfinger]

He should wear a toupe, grow fat, put on a pink tie and work on his pronounciation of "S".

[EL7]

If we had waited any longer for an actor, with the skill to protray Bond and the look, we might still be waiting for CR....



I think Bond needed a shake up anyways, and now that many have accepted a different looking Bond, we can look forward to future actors taking on the role and delievering something with substance instead of pretty boys trying to look cool of screen.

[stamper]

These are just a few things I would do to have Craig seem more like "James Bond-007" than a badass action hero who just happens to be called "James Bond."

As opposed to a wimpy model who just happen to called James Bond we had for the last 35 years ?

[jaguar007]

These are just a few things I would do to have Craig seem more like "James Bond-007" than a badass action hero who just happens to be called "James Bond."

I say we get a good script (such as in CR), get a good supporting cast and not just go for big names (as in CR), keep Craig in the role and let him play it as a tough spy (as in CR). Go for good tight story and direction, don't let it turn into a big action fest. I say all they need to do is pretty much keep on suprising us as they did with CR.

[Publius]

But when is being "original" too much?

Let me put it this way: for me, it hasn't been so far, and I'll be the first to say so when it is. They'll probably stop when enough people (or at least the right ones) share that sentiment.

Anyway, the only point I agree with you on is Craig's hair. I liked how it was in CR, but a little longer would be a nice change of pace and would still look good on him.

Also, he really only looks blond in bright sunlight, and even then that suits him perfectly. And hair color darker than light brown, which it naturally is in the shade anyway, wouldn't look too great on him. Besides, am I the only one who thinks the dirty blond look makes for a nice contrast with the tux?

As for the Bond theme, with CR, they used it well for the first time...ever?, and I hope they refrain from using it more than once or twice per movie in the future. If I need blaring music and 40 year old cliches being trotted out to remind me that I'm watching a Bond film, something's probably wrong.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I found Craig as Bond-in-the-making a far better Bond than most of the Bond-we-already-know performances of the last 40 years. Go figure.

[DaveBond21]

Well, I think everyone will agree when I say that it's about time Bond had a robot dog.


And maybe some ninjas to fight. It has been too long.....

[DavidSomerset]

Well, I think everyone will agree when I say that it's about time Bond had a robot dog.


And maybe some ninjas to fight. It has been too long.....

...And hollowed volcanoes. And frikking sharks. All of the Brosnan films never had any frikking sharks (correct me if I am wrong). And I really miss the pigeons and monkeys from John Glen's era.

[jaguar007]

Well, I think everyone will agree when I say that it's about time Bond had a robot dog.


And maybe some ninjas to fight. It has been too long.....

...And hollowed volcanoes. And frikking sharks. All of the Brosnan films never had any frikking sharks (correct me if I am wrong). And I really miss the pigeons and monkeys from John Glen's era.

Make that frikkin' sharks with "lazer beams"

[DavidSomerset]

Make that frikkin' sharks with "lazer beams"

Bond's sharks never had laser beams. Bond films are realistic and real sharks dont have laser beams.

TB was cool because it had 2 long sequences which featured sharks. So the rule is the more sharks the merrier. I think they should have 3 long sequences with sharks in Bond 22.

How about a underwater parkour sequence with Bond and sharks?

Edited by DavidSomerset, 30 January 2007 - 06:40 AM.