268 replies to this topic

[Kristatos]

Probably Daniel Craig could be a good Bond Villain, but as 007 himself it would be shivering me a lot.
He looks for me beside all the other candidates like a toad!

[SeanValen00V]

Robert Davi tested for John Glenn as Bond even though he wasn't going to be Bond in Licence to Kill, although John thought he wasn't a bad Bond lol, which makes it perfect for a villian, most people feel Daniel Craig isn't right for Bond, he could be close to it, you see when a actor isn't quite Bond, Sean Bean, Daniel Craig, and Robert Davi, they make great mirror image villians of Bond!

Daniel Craig looks a bit like the henchmen who fought with Connery on the rain in From Russia with love. EON gotta cast him as a villian, be a great villian.

Bond I say was between Brosnan, Owen, Dougary Scott and Hugh Jackman.

Hugh Jackman said he was too young for it now months ago, but at 40, would be perfect, and in 2008 he'll be close to 40, xmen 3 and wolverine spin off will use his time up anyway.

Dougary Scott, I bet he's talked about it, about being Bond, but isn't convinced he can take on the role, and deflect the shadow as the next scott following Connery.

Owen, must of had talks, either as a villian or Bond.

It was between Owen and Brosnan at a point, but now it's Pierce Brosnan, Sony don't want to risk a new Bond with their first Bond film after the merger, the brosnan axe didn't fit rosy with the public. Owen is gonna be busy filming other stuff, EON/SONY, BROSNAN behind the scenes are working out negotiations in secret, saying nothing official until a deal is done.

Dench knows it's happening.

Edited by SeanValen00V, 02 May 2005 - 11:01 PM.

[hrabb04]

I think when all is said and done, Brosnan will have more money than God, an island of his very own, and one last James Bond movie--a good one--to go out on.

[Tarl_Cabot]

He has way more money than he deserves for his "acting" and I hope he doesn't come back...

[tdalton]

He has way more money than he deserves for his "acting" and I hope he doesn't come back...

Very true. Brosnan was overpaid for his role as James Bond, especially since the quality of his performance as the character ranged from mediocre to just flat out terrible. Glad he's gone and it's time to bring in Bond #6.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Now that Craig has blabbed, he won't ever be Bond. He's done his dash.

[Mr_Wint]

I sincerely hope Casino Royale will mark the return of an older more traditional villain (Largo, Drax, Carver etc).

Daniel Craig as a villain... what a disappointment, again!

[SecretAgentFan]

I disagree - the age of the villain does not matter per se, only if it serves the story. And having Daniel Craig as "Le Chiffre" in "CR" would make a lot of sense. Yet, the more I think about it the more I warm to the idea of Craig as Bond. I mean, come on, people - everybody who said that they don

[Mr_Wint]

The age of the villain does matter... in Bond's world. The henchman is a physical challenge, an evil mirror of Bond. The main villain is older, more experienced - an intellectual challenge for Bond, an evil mirror of M.

Not everything in a Bondfilm has to be influenced by the current Hollywood trend. And don't give me the "serves a story"-crap. If the story doesn't call for a Drax-type of villain, then simply rewrite it, IMHO.

As for Daniel Craig as Bond I can't comment since I have never seen him on screen. He looks more interesting and British than Owen but might take himself a little bit too serious to be suited for the role.

[Blofeld's Cat]

The age of the villain does matter... in Bond's world. The henchman is a physical challenge, an evil mirror of Bond. The main villain is older, more experienced - an intellectual challenge for Bond, an evil mirror of M.

Well said.

That the reason why I didn't like Graves as a villain in Die Another Day - too young.

[SeanValen00V]

About Sanchez's age in Licence to Kill is good.

But you got to vary it now and again, if all Bond villians were the same age, it would be weird, they would say Bond doesn't go against different types of people at different ages.

[SeanValen00V]

He has way more money than he deserves for his "acting" and I hope he doesn't come back...

At the end of the day, none of us are paying Brosnan. It's what EON is willing to pay him, if they want him, then he's worth it to them.

There's no ideal candidate to replace Brosnan at this time, alot of talk, speculation, but it's a big risk, and if they want to write a good Bond film for Brosnan, we'll get a good Bond film. Even a Timothy Dalton would look embarrising in the last act of Die Another Day.

I wasn't Dalton's biggest fan when his films came out, I liked them alot, liked his Bond, but Moore and Connery overshadowed him, but 10 years later or so, Dalton's my favorite, because I understand what he was trying to do more. Now Brosnan hasn't been given alot to do in his Bond films, you may look back at films as see good potential of what could of been, and hoped he did one more film, as you get older you appreciate different things, a new actor for Bond is a big risk, and the way Brosnan was shafted wasn't good for the fanhise, in a way, EON are using Brosnan as a escape goat for this proposed new realistic type Bond film they wanna do, truth is, Brosnan can do well if they wanna write for him well. What EON wanna do, is convince everything Casino Royale is fresh, realistic and such, kinda like Goldeneye, then they will get lazy with the new Bond, but if they are willing to admit their mistakes, and improve Bond for Brosnan, then that means, the Bond after, in 2008 maybe, will more likely be getting extra attention in the Bond he will want to mould. Right now there's still this Brosnan should do one more hungar among the public, the new Bond rumour craze has been happening during Brosnan's tenture, over the last 10 years, the media love it, but it doesn't mean it's great for the timing and quality of the Bond films.

[Loomis]

I'm fine with Craig as either Bond or a villain - while I'm not familiar with his work, he looks a quality actor, and I hope he's going to be in CASINO ROYALE in some shape or form. If he's going to be Bond, he should keep his hair colour - light hair worked fine for Moore.

I don't think he's too young to play a bad guy, particularly if CR will feature the rookie Bond on his first major assignment.

[Mr. Somerset]

I'm fine with Craig as either Bond or a villain - while I'm not familiar with his work, he looks a quality actor, and I hope he's going to be in CASINO ROYALE in some shape or form. If he's going to be Bond, he should keep his hair colour - light hair worked fine for Moore.

I don't think he's too young to play a bad guy, particularly if CR will feature the rookie Bond on his first major assignment.

I just saw the trailer for Layer Cake, and I can kind of see why Barbara and Michael might consider him. Although he's not my first choice, I could probably accept him. I agree about the hair, just give him the right cut.

[hrabb04]

Yeah, he's a serious contender...for being beaten with an ugly stick. Didn't Austin Powers punch him out once, trying to remove his wig?

[Seannery]

Yeah, he's a serious contender...for being beaten with an ugly stick.  Didn't Austin Powers punch him out once, trying to remove his wig?

I saw a preview of Layer Cake and a photo of him in USA Today and he's not ugly. A bit rough but he has a decent enough look. It might work.

[zencat]

Wow! Look at THIS article at IGN.com. The studio offered it to him but the Broccolis didn't?

This gets stranger and stranger.

May 03, 2005 - IGN FilmForce got the chance to speak to Layer Cake director Matthew Vaughn and star Daniel Craig yesterday. Both men addressed the rumors about their respective involvement with the James Bond series. Vaughn was reportedly on the shortlist to direct Casino Royale but ended up agreeing to helm X-Men 3 instead. Craig, meanwhile, has been pegged as the next 007 by the British tabloids. Vaughn advised IGNFF that "it is true" that he was approached about directing Casino Royale. "It was a strange situation. The truth of the matter is I was offered it by MGM but not by the Broccolis. There was smoke or there was fire." Vaughn opted to concoct his own spy thriller instead; that project is currently in-development. Daniel Craig spoke at length about the Casino Royale rumors. "It was a surreal time to have the studio phoning you up saying you've got the job and then the Broccolis saying nothing. ... I just let it go. I'm a big believer that if they want you Back to top #78 Jim Jim Commander RNVR Commanding Officers 14266 posts Location:Oxfordshire Posted 03 May 2005 - 07:08 PM Wow. Seriously; something rum's afoot. Back to top #79 spynovelfan spynovelfan Commander CMG Discharged 5855 posts Posted 03 May 2005 - 07:09 PM That is quite odd, yes. Got to wonder how big the 'group' is, though. It might chime with Judi Dench's they've tested everyone on the face of planet quote, ie Craig was one of 20 people looked at and currently under discussion (after having their names leaked to the press to see how the public reacts?) and he just happens to have a film out next week so he's being asked about/is happy to answer because it will get more press. So perhaps they have looked at Craig and Owen and McMahon and Scott and everyone else, and they're just waiting to see what we think? Clive, Babs, Clive. Back to top #80 Jim Jim Commander RNVR Commanding Officers 14266 posts Location:Oxfordshire Posted 03 May 2005 - 07:14 PM I wonder if it's "Get Brosnan back or we'll force you to have monkey boy here"; bit of a suicide button option? OK, that is pretty unlikely, but God knows which camp of the game of bluff and counter-bluff allowed this to be released. Or was it released to trick us into believing there is a game of bluff and counter-bluff? Or...? Head hurts now. Back to top #81 Loomis Loomis Commander CMG Veterans 21862 posts Posted 03 May 2005 - 07:20 PM I wonder if it's "Get Brosnan back or we'll force you to have this guy"; bit of a suicide button option? If so, though, wouldn't Eon jump at the chance of having Craig? After all, rumour has it that the bad blood's between Brosnan and Eon. I thought Barbara Broccoli always favoured Craig anyway, with Sony wanting Brosnan or Owen. Craig may be being "dangled" by Sony infront of Brosnan to persuade him lower his price, or agree to certain terms and conditions, I guess. But it seems Craig thinks he's out of the picture: "It was a surreal time to have the studio phoning you up saying you've got the job and then the Broccolis saying nothing. ... I just let it go. I'm a big believer that if they want you Back to top #82 spynovelfan spynovelfan Commander CMG Discharged 5855 posts Posted 03 May 2005 - 07:28 PM I wonder if it's "Get Brosnan back or we'll force you to have monkey boy here"; bit of a suicide button option? OK, that is pretty unlikely, but God knows which camp of the game of bluff and counter-bluff allowed this to be released. Or was it released to trick us into believing there is a game of bluff and counter-bluff? Or...? Head hurts now. Sounds like a Gardner novel. You could almost film the entire saga. NO DEAL, MR CRAIG. NEVER SAY OWEN AGAIN. LICENCE RENEWED - OR IS IT? - PERHAPS IT'S NOT REACHED ITS EXPIRATION DATE YET, LET'S LEAVE IT. Edited by spynovelfan, 03 May 2005 - 07:29 PM. Back to top #83 zencat zencat Commander GCMG Commanding Officers 25814 posts Location:Studio City, CA Posted 03 May 2005 - 07:29 PM Okay, a theory: Eon and MGM have a massive falling out over the Jinx movie. Eon says don't expect us to give you Bond 21 anytime soon (they did the same thing when MGM pissed them off in 89). The studio says, fine, we'll start to develop the project without you, we DO own 50% after all (at least we think we do?). MGM meets with their Layer Cake director Matt Vaughn who says he'd love to do Bond with his bud Daniel Craig. MGM says "great", we're on. (Remember when the MGM president said Bond 21 was "on schedule" -- which seemed a totally insane thing to say at the time). Eon says nothing because they know MGM is on the block and they'll wait it out. Privately, they contact Martin Cambell and ask if he'd come back. He says 'yes", for a price. They say just wait and you will have it. Sony buys MGM and the MGM execs march in and say they have Bond 21 all ready to go with Vaughn and Craig. The Sony execs call Eon who say MGM are a bunch of nitwits; they have Martin Campbell all lined up (if Sony will pay his price) and would like to work with Sony on casting the new Bond. Sony tells MGM to pack their bags and take all their "good ideas" with them. Sony agrees to a year delay, pay Campbell his price, and get to work with Eon on casting. Vaughn sees the writing on the wall and takes another job quick, saving face by saying "the Bond people" wanted him but he decided to take a "passion" project instead, and all poor Daniel Craig knows is the studio said he had the part and Eon said nothing (and well-known Bond website CBn is told Craig was never a contender Back to top #84 Jim Jim Commander RNVR Commanding Officers 14266 posts Location:Oxfordshire Posted 03 May 2005 - 07:32 PM That sounds plausible. Doesn't make anyone look very good, though, does it? Having not bothered with the threads on the new Bond for a bit, I'm now very confused and for the good of my sparse mental health will withdraw. Back to top #85 spynovelfan spynovelfan Commander CMG Discharged 5855 posts Posted 03 May 2005 - 07:33 PM I think something like Zencat's theory must have happened. Certainly with both sides doing different things. Might even explain the whirlwind of rumours we've been getting the last few months - is it too cynical to think that the politicking might have descended into leaking preferred candidates against each other into the public domain? Back to top #86 zencat zencat Commander GCMG Commanding Officers 25814 posts Location:Studio City, CA Posted 03 May 2005 - 07:38 PM ...Might even explain the whirlwind of rumours we've been getting the last few months - is it too cynical to think that the politicking might have descended into leaking preferred candidates against each other into the public domain? Not cynical at all, spynovelfan. I think you might be bang on about that. Also, remember ex-MGM exec Peter Bart's editorial in Vartiey that was VERY nasty towards Michael and Babara persoanlly? Now we know what that might have really been about. Add on top of my theory a whole other layer of politics having to do with Brosnan, and I think we may begin to understand what it's really like to produce a James Bond movie (or any movie in Hollywood for that matter). Back to top #87 Loomis Loomis Commander CMG Veterans 21862 posts Posted 03 May 2005 - 08:05 PM Assuming Barbara Broccoli's preferred candidate isn't Brosnan or Craig, I wonder who she favours for Bond. Owen? Another famous name, or an unknown or near-unknown? Or maybe the problem is that Eon (unlike Sony, it would seem) has yet to make a decision. Eon was evidently able to decide on a director and get its way, but perhaps the boring truth is that Broccoli and co. simply haven't found "their" James Bond. Back to top #88 cvheady007 cvheady007 Lieutenant Crew 612 posts Location:St. Louis, Missouri, USA Posted 03 May 2005 - 08:48 PM Does anyone have Daniel Craig listed as their "Next Bond" of preference on this entire site? I'm just curious. And, if powers that be are truly just throwing out names to get reaction and see the public's opinion, I hope they are reading this "NO to Craig. YES to Brosnan". I'll say it a million times if I have to. Back to top #89 Loomis Loomis Commander CMG Veterans 21862 posts Posted 03 May 2005 - 08:52 PM Does anyone have Daniel Craig listed as their "Next Bond" of preference on this entire site?  I'm just curious. I don't know, but he's rapidly becoming my number two candidate after Owen. Count me among those saying "YES!" to Craig. Back to top #90 tdalton tdalton Commander Veterans 11680 posts Posted 03 May 2005 - 09:02 PM I don't know, but he's rapidly becoming my number two candidate after Owen. Count me among those saying "YES!" to Craig. I'm in the same boat as Loomis on this one. Clive's my number 1 guy for the role, but Craig has easily established himself as my number 2 candidate. I watched the trailer for Layer Cake yesterday and I will say that he looks much better in action than he does in a lot of the still photos that I've had to judge him on so far. Back to top Prev Page 3 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 Next » Back to Casino Royale (2006) Reply to quoted posts     Clear

[Jim]

Wow.

Seriously; something rum's afoot.

[spynovelfan]

That is quite odd, yes. Got to wonder how big the 'group' is, though. It might chime with Judi Dench's they've tested everyone on the face of planet quote, ie Craig was one of 20 people looked at and currently under discussion (after having their names leaked to the press to see how the public reacts?) and he just happens to have a film out next week so he's being asked about/is happy to answer because it will get more press. So perhaps they have looked at Craig and Owen and McMahon and Scott and everyone else, and they're just waiting to see what we think?

Clive, Babs, Clive.

[Jim]

I wonder if it's "Get Brosnan back or we'll force you to have monkey boy here"; bit of a suicide button option?

OK, that is pretty unlikely, but God knows which camp of the game of bluff and counter-bluff allowed this to be released. Or was it released to trick us into believing there is a game of bluff and counter-bluff?

Or...?

Head hurts now.

[Loomis]

I wonder if it's "Get Brosnan back or we'll force you to have this guy"; bit of a suicide button option?

If so, though, wouldn't Eon jump at the chance of having Craig? After all, rumour has it that the bad blood's between Brosnan and Eon. I thought Barbara Broccoli always favoured Craig anyway, with Sony wanting Brosnan or Owen. Craig may be being "dangled" by Sony infront of Brosnan to persuade him lower his price, or agree to certain terms and conditions, I guess.

But it seems Craig thinks he's out of the picture: "It was a surreal time to have the studio phoning you up saying you've got the job and then the Broccolis saying nothing. ... I just let it go. I'm a big believer that if they want you

[spynovelfan]

I wonder if it's "Get Brosnan back or we'll force you to have monkey boy here"; bit of a suicide button option?

OK, that is pretty unlikely, but God knows which camp of the game of bluff and counter-bluff allowed this to be released. Or was it released to trick us into believing there is a game of bluff and counter-bluff?

Or...?

Head hurts now.

Sounds like a Gardner novel. You could almost film the entire saga. NO DEAL, MR CRAIG. NEVER SAY OWEN AGAIN. LICENCE RENEWED - OR IS IT? - PERHAPS IT'S NOT REACHED ITS EXPIRATION DATE YET, LET'S LEAVE IT.

Edited by spynovelfan, 03 May 2005 - 07:29 PM.

[zencat]

Okay, a theory:

Eon and MGM have a massive falling out over the Jinx movie. Eon says don't expect us to give you Bond 21 anytime soon (they did the same thing when MGM pissed them off in 89). The studio says, fine, we'll start to develop the project without you, we DO own 50% after all (at least we think we do?).

MGM meets with their Layer Cake director Matt Vaughn who says he'd love to do Bond with his bud Daniel Craig. MGM says "great", we're on. (Remember when the MGM president said Bond 21 was "on schedule" -- which seemed a totally insane thing to say at the time). Eon says nothing because they know MGM is on the block and they'll wait it out. Privately, they contact Martin Cambell and ask if he'd come back. He says 'yes", for a price. They say just wait and you will have it.

Sony buys MGM and the MGM execs march in and say they have Bond 21 all ready to go with Vaughn and Craig. The Sony execs call Eon who say MGM are a bunch of nitwits; they have Martin Campbell all lined up (if Sony will pay his price) and would like to work with Sony on casting the new Bond.

Sony tells MGM to pack their bags and take all their "good ideas" with them. Sony agrees to a year delay, pay Campbell his price, and get to work with Eon on casting.

Vaughn sees the writing on the wall and takes another job quick, saving face by saying "the Bond people" wanted him but he decided to take a "passion" project instead, and all poor Daniel Craig knows is the studio said he had the part and Eon said nothing (and well-known Bond website CBn is told Craig was never a contender

[Jim]

That sounds plausible.

Doesn't make anyone look very good, though, does it?

Having not bothered with the threads on the new Bond for a bit, I'm now very confused and for the good of my sparse mental health will withdraw.

[spynovelfan]

I think something like Zencat's theory must have happened. Certainly with both sides doing different things. Might even explain the whirlwind of rumours we've been getting the last few months - is it too cynical to think that the politicking might have descended into leaking preferred candidates against each other into the public domain?

[zencat]

...Might even explain the whirlwind of rumours we've been getting the last few months - is it too cynical to think that the politicking might have descended into leaking preferred candidates against each other into the public domain?

Not cynical at all, spynovelfan. I think you might be bang on about that.

Also, remember ex-MGM exec Peter Bart's editorial in Vartiey that was VERY nasty towards Michael and Babara persoanlly? Now we know what that might have really been about.

Add on top of my theory a whole other layer of politics having to do with Brosnan, and I think we may begin to understand what it's really like to produce a James Bond movie (or any movie in Hollywood for that matter).

[Loomis]

Assuming Barbara Broccoli's preferred candidate isn't Brosnan or Craig, I wonder who she favours for Bond. Owen? Another famous name, or an unknown or near-unknown?

Or maybe the problem is that Eon (unlike Sony, it would seem) has yet to make a decision. Eon was evidently able to decide on a director and get its way, but perhaps the boring truth is that Broccoli and co. simply haven't found "their" James Bond.

[cvheady007]

Does anyone have Daniel Craig listed as their "Next Bond" of preference on this entire site? I'm just curious.

And, if powers that be are truly just throwing out names to get reaction and see the public's opinion, I hope they are reading this "NO to Craig. YES to Brosnan". I'll say it a million times if I have to.

[Loomis]

Does anyone have Daniel Craig listed as their "Next Bond" of preference on this entire site?  I'm just curious.

I don't know, but he's rapidly becoming my number two candidate after Owen. Count me among those saying "YES!" to Craig.

[tdalton]

I don't know, but he's rapidly becoming my number two candidate after Owen. Count me among those saying "YES!" to Craig.

I'm in the same boat as Loomis on this one. Clive's my number 1 guy for the role, but Craig has easily established himself as my number 2 candidate. I watched the trailer for Layer Cake yesterday and I will say that he looks much better in action than he does in a lot of the still photos that I've had to judge him on so far.