Edward Fox does not like Craig
#61
Posted 26 March 2007 - 05:19 AM
#62
Posted 26 March 2007 - 05:24 AM
You're absolutely right, but there is expressing your opinion and there's being plain rude. For my part, it's his use of 'I knew Fleming' to try and elevate his opinion to fact that turns this from merely some old codger's opinion into irritating .Calm down, everyone.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some of my friends have surprised me by saying Daniel Craig is plain ugly, and it was "not a Bond movie".
Interesting but please remember not everyone likes it, and they are fully entitled to their opinions, just as we are.
#63
Posted 26 March 2007 - 05:28 AM
and there's being plain rude
I think that is poetic licence from the person who spoke with Fox.
#64
Posted 26 March 2007 - 01:58 PM
#65
Posted 26 March 2007 - 02:22 PM
Am I the first person to point out he wasn't playing Fleming's "M" in NSNA. He was Sir Miles's successor.....
I barely care about NSNA as it is. Can you imagine how little I care who Edward Fox was playing...?
#66
Posted 26 March 2007 - 03:20 PM
#67
Posted 26 March 2007 - 03:28 PM
#68
Posted 26 March 2007 - 03:36 PM
Well, I don't like Edward Fox, who's nowhere near as talented as his brother. He was also one of the worst things in the dross that was NSNA.
Does that even up the score?You notice how is is always men who think Craig is ungly
No, you're wrong. It's always UGLY, middle-aged men who think it...
Edward Fox is middle aged? When did 70 become middle aged?
#69
Posted 26 March 2007 - 03:53 PM
Well, I don't like Edward Fox, who's nowhere near as talented as his brother. He was also one of the worst things in the dross that was NSNA.
Does that even up the score?You notice how is is always men who think Craig is ungly
No, you're wrong. It's always UGLY, middle-aged men who think it...
Edward Fox is middle aged? When did 70 become middle aged?
If that makes 33 still young, I have nothing to question.
#70
Posted 26 March 2007 - 03:58 PM
Well, I don't like Edward Fox, who's nowhere near as talented as his brother. He was also one of the worst things in the dross that was NSNA.
Does that even up the score?You notice how is is always men who think Craig is ungly
No, you're wrong. It's always UGLY, middle-aged men who think it...
Edward Fox is middle aged? When did 70 become middle aged?
Well, my middle-aged men reference was meant to be generic, but I take your point. Actually, I get the impression Edward Fox was middle-aged at ten...
#71
Posted 26 March 2007 - 04:28 PM
#72
Posted 26 March 2007 - 04:32 PM
Ugh, there's nothing more inconvenient than an old queen with a head cold.
Unless it's a cold queen with an old head...
#73
Posted 26 March 2007 - 04:42 PM
$600 million box-office says otherwise.
THE DAY OF THE JACKAL star, 68, is disgusted by Craig's appearance, and claims a blond spy would never have been approved by Bond creator IAN FLEMING.
He says of Craig, "So ugly! He is utterly wrong for Bond. The opposite of what Fleming intended, and I knew Fleming."
And yet Fleming was quite happy to sell the rights of Casino Royale and to have it made into a television drama starring CIA* agent 'Card Sense' Jimmy Bond. I also seem to recall that Sean Connery was the opposite of what Fleming intended, until Dr No became a success and suddenly Connery was the best thing since sliced bread. It has been well documented that Fleming was less interested in the artistic rendering of his books on film so long as he was making pot loads of dosh. I'm not sure how well Mr Fox knew Fleming, but I would submit that working for Kevin McClory doesn't really smack of loyalty. Still, everyone is entitled to an opinion.
*CIA - Combined Intelligence Agency, as per Ian Fleming's original novel published by Jonathan Cape. Future editions were changed to Central Intelligence Agency.
#74
Posted 26 March 2007 - 04:52 PM
2)Daniel Craig is not ugly at all, he just has rugged and uncommon looks, and to be perfectly frank, personally, i think, out of all of the Bonds, he is the better looking.
3)Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but never, have i seen anyone use a dead man to fight their battles "The opposite of what Fleming intended" "I knew Fleming" - he wouldn't know if fleming approved of Craig because fleming has never seen any of his work.
4) "utterly wrong", i'll tell you whats "utterly wrong", a man who is friends with Fleming and goes off and makes a unofficial movie to rival the franchise (the official franchise what fleming approved of) not only that, go and star in a horrible remake of flemings work.
5) I think Fleming would be really proud of his first novel, FINALLY being made how it should be.
#75
Posted 26 March 2007 - 05:59 PM
I do think everyone deserves an opinion and that there is a time to express it, like now! My friend who has met Daniel is in the know and repeatedly tells me that he does looks the part and fits many of the "perceived" characterists. Perhaps there is a "universal" actor out there who everyone thinks is correct for the role but I doubt it. Ian Fleming gave very sketchy clues about James Bond, except "the comma" of hair that wouldn't stay in place and I think that is because he wanted us all to almost picture ourselves there doing those things. He concentrated on describing, in incredible detail, everything that Bond was seeing, feeling, eating etc and that was his art. I must say that when I read the Fleming books I still picture Connery but as the John Gardner and Raymond Benson books are more current I picture Craig.
I should apologise in advance as these are My opinions and will, obviously be shot down in flames almost immediately!!!!
Edited by Scamp, 26 March 2007 - 06:00 PM.
#76
Posted 26 March 2007 - 09:27 PM
Didn't Fleming supposedly consider Jimmy Stewart for Bond? (Well they say he really meant Stewart Granger but that would be like saying "Michael Douglas" when you really want Michael Keaton)And yet Fleming was quite happy to sell the rights of Casino Royale and to have it made into a television drama starring CIA* agent 'Card Sense' Jimmy Bond. I also seem to recall that Sean Connery was the opposite of what Fleming intended, until Dr No became a success and suddenly Connery was the best thing since sliced bread. It has been well documented that Fleming was less interested in the artistic rendering of his books on film so long as he was making pot loads of dosh.
If Ratoff's Casino Royale with Susan Hayward (so says Dr. Shatterhand) had been made and been a hit I don't think Fleming would have complained.
I was wondering about that as well.I'm not sure how well Mr Fox knew Fleming, but I would submit that working for Kevin McClory doesn't really smack of loyalty.
So this was Fleming's mistake and not the telewriters? I did not know that.*CIA - Combined Intelligence Agency, as per Ian Fleming's original novel published by Jonathan Cape. Future editions were changed to Central Intelligence Agency.
#77
Posted 26 March 2007 - 10:52 PM
So this was Fleming's mistake and not the telewriters? I did not know that.
*CIA - Combined Intelligence Agency, as per Ian Fleming's original novel published by Jonathan Cape. Future editions were changed to Central Intelligence Agency.
It wasn't a mistake, rather an attempt by Fleming, in his first novel, not to explicitly use the name Central Intelligence Agency (although he still used the abreviation). At the time of writing, the agency had only been 'trading' by the name Central Intelligence Agency for less than five years.
Fleming was certainly aware of the various intelligence agencies and in fact contributed to the development of the COI - Office Of Co-ordinator of Information, headed up by William Donovan, which became the OSS - Office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of the CIA. In July 1941, by way of thanks, Donovan presented Fleming with a .38 Police Positive Colt revolver, inscribed 'For Special Services'. [Although never a Director of Central Intelligence, a portrait of Major General William J Donovan hangs in the DCI Portrait Gallery at CIA HQ.] On his return to London from the US, Fleming went via Lisbon to check on Operation 'Golden Eye'. Another story for another thread...
#78
Posted 26 March 2007 - 10:56 PM
#79
Posted 26 March 2007 - 11:03 PM
#80
Posted 27 March 2007 - 01:37 PM
Opinions are like holes; everyone has one, and they ALL stink!
Edited by StephS, 27 March 2007 - 01:38 PM.
#81
Posted 29 March 2007 - 12:32 PM
Calm down, everyone.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some of my friends have surprised me by saying Daniel Craig is plain ugly, and it was "not a Bond movie".
Interesting but please remember not everyone likes it, and they are fully entitled to their opinions, just as we are.
Well said, DaveBond.
I thought that Craig did a sensational job in the role yet he still remains an acquired taste for me cosmetically. Doesn't change the fact that I'm awaiting the follow-up with great anticipation.
#82
Posted 29 March 2007 - 03:21 PM
Fleming would have disaproved.
Bernard Lee forever, Mr Edward the ugly fox for never
#83
Posted 29 March 2007 - 03:38 PM
And anyway, ugliness is in the eye of the beholder; Fleming himself described Bond as looking like Hoagy Carmichael, only with a scar! I dare say if that's Ian's idea of handsome, he doesn't have much company (with the possible exception of Hoagy's mom).
Personally, I think Craig's a lot like Dalton. Neither resembles my mental image of Bond, but both of them make me forget that a few minutes into their performances. I'd rather see a Bond actor who can act the part despite not totally looking it, than one who looks perfect for it but still can't turn in a convincing performance anyway. Kudos to EON for picking a guy based on ability rather than his headshot.
#84
Posted 29 March 2007 - 04:07 PM
As long as the box office takes are as healthy as it was for CR, we'll all have to deal with him at the 007 helm for the duration whether we like it or not.
#85
Posted 30 March 2007 - 11:26 PM
Well, you know what they say:
Opinions are like holes; everyone has one, and they ALL stink!
Well, YOURS certainly does.
#86
Posted 31 March 2007 - 06:29 AM
Its all part of the game called Fame and Success.But the movies a huge success and a lot of positive opinion is coz of that.If Movie did miserably then maybe there wud have been more of the negative opinion.
#87
Posted 31 March 2007 - 08:48 PM
#88
Posted 13 April 2007 - 06:34 AM
#89
Posted 13 April 2007 - 06:54 AM
#90
Posted 24 April 2007 - 10:02 PM