Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

Daniel Craig a serious contender after all?


268 replies to this topic

#151 Slaezenger

Slaezenger

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 402 posts

Posted 04 May 2005 - 03:53 PM

And, personally, I don't think McMahon is an oil painting, either (that hairline, that forehead, that resemblance to Matt Le Blanc crossed with Kevin Spacey) - I'd agree, though, that he'd be a (considerably) "safer and more commercial choice" than Craig, as well as a safer and more commercial choice than Scott and also Dominic West (another guy who's no Adonis, IMO), whom The Daily Telegraph (I think) reported to be on a shortlist of two a while back. I truly believe that Owen looks like the most handsome chap in town compared to Craig, McMahon, Scott and West.


...If one looks at the matter from Eon's perspective, the question remains: Which actor satisfies Cubby Broccoli's Rule: An actor the guys want to be like and the girls want to bed. Of the names being floated -- who do you think satisifes Broccoli's rule?

Edited by Slaezenger, 04 May 2005 - 04:29 PM.


#152 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 04 May 2005 - 06:57 PM

And, personally, I don't think McMahon is an oil painting, either (that hairline, that forehead, that resemblance to Matt Le Blanc crossed with Kevin Spacey) - I'd agree, though, that he'd be a (considerably) "safer and more commercial choice" than Craig, as well as a safer and more commercial choice than Scott and also Dominic West (another guy who's no Adonis, IMO), whom The Daily Telegraph (I think) reported to be on a shortlist of two a while back. I truly believe that Owen looks like the most handsome chap in town compared to Craig, McMahon, Scott and West.


...If one looks at the matter from Eon's perspective, the question remains: Which actor satisfies Cubby Broccoli's Rule: An actor the guys want to be like and the girls want to bed. Of the names being floated -- who do you think satisifes Broccoli's rule?

View Post


Not sure McMahon satisfies that rule, at least from the point of view of men wanting to be like him. Admittedly, I've only ever seen photos of him, but he looks a bit smug and oily to me, like a used car salesman. And would many blokes hanker after that colossal forehead (okay, I'm exaggerating slightly), receding hairline and resemblance to Kevin Spacey? He's handsome, I guess, but not that handsome - he's no Brosnan. Looks-wise I don't think he's all that much more impressive than Craig, Scott or West, and I certainly consider Owen a heck of a lot better-looking (although I'm sure many would strongly disagree).

Craig - well, he looks the strong, silent type, a guy who could do a lot of damage if called upon to do so (very much unlike McMahon and West). He seems very much a "man's man", but not just a common-or-garden thug. The looks seem a very big problem, though - I can't in good conscience say that I think he's even vaguely handsome. But I haven't seen him in anything. I'll comment more after watching LAYER CAKE - who knows, he might surprise me.

West - again, I don't think I've seen him in anything - although I have seen THE PHANTOM MENACE, so I may have blinked and missed him (or not). Frankly, he strikes me as rather fey and effeminate, as well as rather puny and not especially good-looking. I'm sure he has his female fans, though, many of whom fantasise about sleeping with him, but then I'm also sure that that's true of all of them (yep, even Craig), so that doesn't get us anywhere.

Scott - he's got Craig's hard edge (which I think McMahon and West lack). Not the most handsome of the so-called candidates, by a long shot (although heaven knows he's a lot more handsome than Craig), but in M:I-2 (the only thing I've seen him in) there are at least glimpses of charm and seductiveness.

So, guessing wildly, and without covering all the candidates, I'd say that the people the guys want to be like and the girls want to bed might be:

Brosnan

Jackman

Owen

Scott (although he's not an ideal candidate by any means).

But like I say, I'm just guessing. All very subjective, and I guess it's for the women of CBn to say which candidates might make Bonds the girls would want to bed.

#153 Daltonfan

Daltonfan

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 292 posts

Posted 04 May 2005 - 07:46 PM

Daniel Craig appears to have a few female fans, and some better pictures at empireonline.
I think women may find him attractive in much the same way we like Sean Bean. I don't know if that makes sense.

Edited by Daltonfan, 04 May 2005 - 07:46 PM.


#154 Stephenson

Stephenson

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 917 posts

Posted 04 May 2005 - 08:17 PM

One of the things I liked about the Italian Job was the decision to make the character of "Handsome Rob" attractive, not because of his looks, but because he could charm the pants off any woman. Maybe Craig really can act charming enough to be Bond ...

#155 RITZ

RITZ

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 947 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 May 2005 - 08:45 PM

Maybe Craig really can act charming enough to be Bond ...

View Post

Could work. But height may be a bit of a problem for Craig.

Ive been wondering how Craig, and other so called "contenders" have been thinking about the role, if they get it. The media frenzy that will follow them everywhere, the exposure and promotion work that they will have to do.

Its a big business being the next 007 - I just hope EON and prepares the next actor and brief's him fully about the whole Bond thing, and try to learn from mistakes in the past.

Good luck to whoever gets the role :)

#156 RITZ

RITZ

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 947 posts
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 May 2005 - 08:54 PM

Ive just noticed our CBN board index still reads "Pierce Brosnan (1995-Present)"

Ahh the love for Brozza on these forums....lol

#157 Agent Provocateur

Agent Provocateur

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 98 posts
  • Location:United States

Posted 04 May 2005 - 08:55 PM

Assuming there's something to these Craig rumours - and I truly believe there's quite a bit of smoke to this particular fire - I'm (temporarily, perhaps) changing my "Next Bond" choice to support our Dan in the hugely unlikely event that The Powers That Be are following these discussions, gauging reactions and so on (yeah, right, like my opinions matter to them).

View Post


:)

Loomis! Nooooooooooo!!!

You and I rarely agree on this forum... but I have to confess you managed to sway me in actually accepting Clive Owen as a possible candidate for Bond. And now you throw your vote to Daniel Craig? Will this madness ever end??? (Just kidding.)

In light of his burgeoning stellar career, it seems more and more unlikely that Owen will take the role of Bond if it is offered to him. On the off chance that he does, I would be more than willing to give the guy a chance. But I have to draw the line there. Daniel Craig may be a good actor, but, in my opinion, he in no way embodies the attributes needed to make him an acceptable Bond. His look is all wrong and from the few movies I've seen him in, he doesn't have the required amount of charisma. The guy comes off as way too creepy. Creepy + brutal = villain. (Which would work well for Daniel Craig.) Suave + dangerous = Bond.

I admire your independent nature, Loomis, in going out on a limb by supporting someone like Craig but you're obviously in the minority on this. I hate to say it, but this is one candidate you will not sway me on. I'm inclined to put my support behind possible candidates like Ioan Gruffud, Christian Bale, Karl Urban... and, yes, even Clive Owen. :)

#158 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 04 May 2005 - 08:58 PM

I'll back Loomis up on this one. It appears as though Clive is all but out of the running, so (while I'd still like Clive to do the part), I'll back Craig for the role of Bond.

#159 trumanlodge89

trumanlodge89

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 615 posts

Posted 04 May 2005 - 09:01 PM

Ive just noticed our CBN board index still reads "Pierce Brosnan (1995-Present)"

Ahh the love for Brozza on these forums....lol

View Post




its just like a presidential election. the lame duck bond is still officially bond untill a new one is sworn in.

#160 Pussfeller

Pussfeller

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4089 posts
  • Location:Washington, D.C.

Posted 04 May 2005 - 09:52 PM

...It appears as though Clive is all but out of the running...

View Post

Sorry to go off-topic, but why have you come to that conclusion? I don't think anyone (with the exception of Brosnan) can be ruled out at this point. Just because the Sin City-inspired Owen craziness has died down doesn't mean anything has actually changed. We're at the same place we were three months ago.

In fact, if anything, Clive's chances have improved. Previously, there was still a chance that Brosnan would return. Now that his departure has been confirmed (and as far as I'm concerned, it has been confirmed), we know it's going to be someone new.

I'm as optimistic about Owen's chances as I've ever been. A couple weeks ago it was definitely going to be McMahon. Now Craig is a "serious contender". I'm sure we'll go through a thousand more rumours before the real announcement is made.

#161 Bondesque

Bondesque

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 428 posts

Posted 04 May 2005 - 09:52 PM

If we take Cubby's golden rule men want to be him women want to bed him then how about Gerry Butler?

#162 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 04 May 2005 - 10:24 PM

...It appears as though Clive is all but out of the running...

View Post

Sorry to go off-topic, but why have you come to that conclusion? I don't think anyone (with the exception of Brosnan) can be ruled out at this point. Just because the Sin City-inspired Owen craziness has died down doesn't mean anything has actually changed. We're at the same place we were three months ago.

In fact, if anything, Clive's chances have improved. Previously, there was still a chance that Brosnan would return. Now that his departure has been confirmed (and as far as I'm concerned, it has been confirmed), we know it's going to be someone new.

I'm as optimistic about Owen's chances as I've ever been. A couple weeks ago it was definitely going to be McMahon. Now Craig is a "serious contender". I'm sure we'll go through a thousand more rumours before the real announcement is made.

View Post


I'll just pose this question to you then: If you were a serious actor with a lot of movie offers coming in and were doing quite well for yourself, would you bother with the Bond franchise? I can answer that for myself, and my answer would be no. No serious actor who has already established himself, which Clive is very much in the process of doing, would want to enter into the Bond franchise at this stage, where it has been virtually run into the ground from a quality standpoint and now we have EON and MGM/Sony bickering with eachother over who will be the next Bond. I doubt that Clive wants any part of that for the next 10 years when he could go out in that time and get himself a couple more Oscar nominations and do some "varied" work that he says that he's so desperate to do.

#163 Bondesque

Bondesque

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 428 posts

Posted 04 May 2005 - 10:50 PM

Unfortunately you are right on the mark with your comment TDalton. No actor with serious upward momentum getting serious dramatic roles and A-line Directors like Owen is would take the Bond role.

Connery is the only Bond to have a successful career post Bond. Hopefully Brosnan will join him although it is unlikely.

That is why EON will probably be able to only attract someone in the Butler, Craig, McMahon, level...B level of stardom hopefully with talent and on the rise.

#164 Marquis

Marquis

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 456 posts
  • Location:North London

Posted 04 May 2005 - 10:52 PM

If we take Cubby's golden rule men want to be him women want to bed him then how about Gerry Butler?

View Post

Well, i can say with the utmost certainty that i absolutely would not want to shag Daniel Craig. Brosnan yes, Butler maybe, Owen...hmmm..if i was hard up. But Craig? Not in this bloody lifetime.

Oh hang on..you said men want to be him, not bed him.

Taxi!!

:)

#165 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 04 May 2005 - 11:08 PM

Ive been wondering how Craig, and other so called "contenders" have been thinking about the role, if they get it. The media frenzy that will follow them everywhere, the exposure and promotion work that they will have to do.

View Post


From the Empire Online page Daltonfan links to (a caption on one of the photos):

Of his relationship with Kate Moss, Craig says: "In the end, it was a relief because I never chased that kind of celebrity, and it was confirmation that I didn't want it"

Hmmm.... if dating Kate Moss turns out to be a bit too "celeb" for Craig's liking, heaven knows how he'd cope with the exposure Bond would bring.

Anyway, I've now seen LAYER CAKE, and have mixed reactions to both the film and to Craig as a potential Bond.

First, the film: it's okay. I've seen worse. I've also seen better, but not from the British film industry in recent years (this is because British films are nearly always awful). This is better than anything I've seen by director Matthew Vaughn's buddy Guy Ritchie (although on reflection "better than anything by Guy Ritchie" seems faint praise indeed). But it's the old pop promo school of whizkid debut directing: terrific visuals, and lashings and lashings of (contrived) style, but absolutely hopeless storytelling. Completely soulless, heartless and ultimately unengaging and forgettable. Could have done with being a lot less aggressively trendy (and, considering how old the whole Britpop aesthetic actually is now, it's a good 10 years out of date, really), or at least with more effort to somehow squeeze a coherent and interesting story into the flashiness, ****-you coolness (so-called) and ultraviolence (yeah, I'm a demanding old so-and-so, I know).

But Vaughn has a pretty good visual eye and knows how to build suspense, which means that, while the narrative is all over the place (and the dialogue often drowned out by the "hip" soundtrack), individual sequences work very well. There are a couple of shocking (and shockingly brutal) moments: Duran Duran's "Ordinary World" will never sound quite the same again.

It's perhaps a bit of a pity that Vaughn won't be directing CASINO ROYALE. There's a lot wrong with LAYER CAKE (which I can't be bothered to go into), but there are good things about it, too, and Vaughn does show genuine talent - his X-MEN 3 should be worth watching. Leastways, I can't believe Martin Campbell is truly anyone's idea of a more exciting and interesting director. Eon has evidently decided to go with a competent but really rather dull and mediocre hack (c'mon, GOLDENEYE fans, ignore his Bond film and try to defend Campbell's body of work - I dare you, I double dare you; it's really pretty uninteresting stuff for the most part) instead of an up-and-coming enfant terrible. A shame they're playing it safe.

Anyway, Craig: well, for the first half or so of the film, I felt he'd be a PHENOMENAL Bond. I'm serious. But I began to find him a little one-note and boring towards the end (just a little, though - he commands attention whenever he's onscreen, and thankfully he's onscreen for pretty much all of the running time), although that may very well be the fault of the script, or something like that. Frankly, the whole movie gets one-note and boring towards the end. Craig's performance, BTW, is easily the best thing about it.

Watching LAYER CAKE, I totally understood why Barbara Broccoli/Sony/whoever it is who supposedly wants him wants Craig for Bond. He reminded me very much of Dalton, right down to the way he delivered his lines. Honestly, I could have closed my eyes and found it easy to imagine I was watching THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. I don't mean Craig has the same accent as Dalton - he doesn't - but the delivery is very similar. A confidence, a classiness about the phrasing. A lot posher than I thought he'd be. He could do brilliantly the English public school man Bond (with more than a few dashes of English public school sadism) that Moore specıalısed in, with Dalton's intensity but also (and this is where I think spynovelfan believes Dalton's Bond falls short) the hedonism, the love of the sensual pleasures in life. A slight touch of Connery circa FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (crikey, this is sounding pretentious, innit? :) ), while the confident walk and cockiness are pure Brozzers. And he moves very well in action scenes.

Which covers all bases, I guess (except for Laz fans), but I must keep coming back to Dalton, definitely the Bond actor I found myself thinking about most when watching Craig.

That said, Craig would make the Bond role very much his own - and, swipe me, how the flippin' heck could he fail to do so when he looks so incredibly unlike any of the previous Bonds? And now we're back to that pretty big problem: Craig ain't pretty - at all. Granted, he looks a lot better on film than he seems to in photos (for some odd reason), but I'm far from convinced he'd really "do" in the fizzog dept (the same problem as with Sam Neill, says I). He has very few close ups in LAYER CAKE, which seems rather telling. Of course, the Bond people could (and presumably would) give him a wig or radical new haircut and some visible eyebrows, and use sympathetic lighting and pots of makeup, but, really, that would quite possibly invite ridicule. And I'm not saying he's Prince, but his height seems if anything an even bigger problem than his lack of dazzlingly beautiful features.

On balance, though, I think he could be a quite brilliant choice, assuming they're planning on reinventing the Bonds as a serious of gritty, Bourne-style spy thrillers with plenty of strong doses of undiluted Fleming; if they're going to go down that path (and remember Martin Campbell's interview comments) then Craig might be an even better choice than Owen.

Craig may not be the most gorgeous guy on the block, but I think he's got that Steve McQueen kind of coolness about him, that alpha male oomph or whatever (doing a quick net search, I see others have compared Craig to McQueen). Sign him up, I say.

Oh, and one more thing: if he is being looked at as a villain in CR (although if that's the case, query why he's claiming to have been considered as and offered Bond), they'd darn well better get someone absolutely awesome as 007, otherwise Bond 6 will be simply blown out of the water by Craig. He has an awful lot of screen presence.

#166 mdileo

mdileo

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 13 posts

Posted 05 May 2005 - 12:08 AM

Here's a possible theory that could explain what is going on:

1 - Julian McMahon was being truthful when he said that he had tested twice for the role and it "was down to him and another actor" (presumably Craig)
2 - Ain't it Cool News was correct when it reported a couple of weeks later that Sony Exec Amy Pascal would be making a choice between McMahon and Craig.
3 - Perhaps McMahon was EON's choice, but being that they are entering into a brand new relationship with Sony, Mickey and Babs didn't want to bully Sony and make it seem like they had to accept their guy (McMahon) outright. So they thru in a "red herring," Craig, convinced that Sony would choose the more traditional looking McMahon. This way it would seem that EON and Sony both had made the same choice. But surprise, surpise, Sony shocks Mickey and Babs by choosing Craig instead. Pascal, thinking at this point that her choice his final, contacts Craig to give him the good news. But then EON says "Wait a minute, no, no no, no. We've decided we don't really like Craig. It has to be McMahon."
4 - The last month has been quiet because perhaps each side is waiting for the other to give in, EON holding out for McMahon, Sony for Craig.
5 - Sony starts to lose patience with the impasse and says, "well, screw it. If we can't decide on McMahon or Craig, then lets just make one more with Brosnan and we'll worry about replacing him 3 years from now."
6 - Now EON probably wants no part of Brosnan now and with 7 months before shooting begins, they feel they have the time to convince Sony that McMahon is the guy.
7 - So again, with 7 months to go, each side may be willing to play this out a awhile longer hoping that the other side caves.

Whatever happens, I believe it is truly down to McMahon, Craig, or the wildcard -Brosnan. There is no concrete evidence that anyone else has even been considered (and with McMahon, he is the only one that EON or Sony haven't issued a denial on). I would be shocked at this point if anyone other than these 3 stars in CR

#167 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 05 May 2005 - 12:19 AM

[quote name='mdileo' date='5 May 2005 - 00:08']Perhaps McMahon was EON's choice, but being that they are entering into a brand new relationship with Sony, Mickey and Babs didn't want to bully Sony and make it seem like they had to accept their guy (McMahon) outright. So they thru in a "red herring," Craig, convinced that Sony would choose the more traditional looking McMahon. This way it would seem that EON and Sony both had made the same choice. But surprise, surpise, Sony shocks Mickey and Babs by choosing Craig instead. Pascal, thinking at this point that her choice his final, contacts Craig to give him the good news.

#168 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 05 May 2005 - 12:26 AM

I don't even know what to think anymore regarding Casino Royale. EON and Sony are supposed to be working together on this project, yet they appear as though they are rivals in a race to make the same film before the other one does (I know that this can't happen, but it's the impression that they're sending out to the public). Why can't their executives grow up and put their petty differences aside and go forward with this project. It's shameful that while they're bickering over who is going to be Bond, the public is becoming more and more angry with them because we're not getting a Bond film this year, and at the rate they're going, we're not going to have a Bond film anytime in the forseeable future.

Pick Daniel Craig, Clive Owen, or Julian McMahon and let's get this thing started. They're all decent choices.

#169 Tarl_Cabot

Tarl_Cabot

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10505 posts
  • Location:The Galaxy of Pleasure

Posted 05 May 2005 - 12:33 AM

"(c'mon, GOLDENEYE fans, ignore his Bond film and try to defend Campbell's body of work - I dare you, I double dare you; it's really pretty uninteresting stuff for the most part) instead of an up-and-coming enfant terrible. A shame they're playing it safe."

Agreed, 100%.And...What's so great about Goldeneye? :)

"Craig ain't pretty "

Well he is Brittish. What did ya expect? :)

#170 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 05 May 2005 - 12:35 AM

I don't even know what to think anymore regarding Casino Royale.  EON and Sony are supposed to be working together on this project, yet they appear as though they are rivals in a race to make the same film before the other one does (I know that this can't happen, but it's the impression that they're sending out to the public).  Why can't their executives grow up and put their petty differences aside and go forward with this project.  It's shameful that while they're bickering over who is going to be Bond, the public is becoming more and more angry with them because we're not getting a Bond film this year, and at the rate they're going, we're not going to have a Bond film anytime in the forseeable future.

Pick Daniel Craig, Clive Owen, or Julian McMahon and let's get this thing started.  They're all decent choices.

View Post


Sadly, I think Owen's out of the question and has been for quite a while. If mdileo is correct about it being down to Brosnan, Craig and McMahon, another thing that's worrying is that those three are so different to each other - how then can they all be right for CASINO ROYALE? (One imagines - with a somewhat heavy heart - that, because it looks as though no one's going to get off their duff and cast an actor to play Bond until the last possible second before the start of shooting, the script is very far from being "locked down" and that the movie consequently stands a pretty fair chance of being "a bit of a mess", taking us back into TND/TWINE/DAD territory.)

But, yes, it does look very much as though rival camps are developing rival CRs.

#171 Bondian

Bondian

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8019 posts
  • Location:Soufend-On-Sea, Mate. England. UK.

Posted 05 May 2005 - 12:35 AM

Well he is Brittish. What did ya expect? :)

View Post

Good one Tarl. LOL

#172 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 05 May 2005 - 12:40 AM

Sadly, I think Owen's out of the question and has been for quite a while. If mdileo is correct about it being down to Brosnan, Craig and McMahon, another thing that's worrying is that those three are so different to each other - how then can they all be right for CASINO ROYALE? (One imagines - with a somewhat heavy heart - that, because it looks as though no one's going to get off their duff and cast an actor to play Bond until the last possible second before the start of shooting, the script is very far from being "locked down" and that the movie consequently stands a pretty fair chance of being "a bit of a mess", taking us back into TND/TWINE/DAD territory.)

But, yes, it does look very much as though rival camps are developing rival CRs.

View Post


It's sad, though. If they take CR down the road of TND and DAD, then it will be the beginning of the end of the Bond franchise. I don't know how the hardcore Bond fans (who are really the ones who keep the Bond franchise running) will be able to go see another Bond film if Casino Royale is messed up for a THIRD time.

My plea to EON/MGM/Sony: Decide on ONE actor and let's go with him. If you have to offer Clive Owen a large amount of money to get him to do the part, then do it. If you both can agree on Daniel Craig, then agree and let's go. If you don't cast Bond until a month or two before shooting begins, then the film will be a mess and it will turn out to be bad enough to rival DAD for the worst film in the series. Put your differences behind you and work on 1 CR film together.

#173 Seannery

Seannery

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3440 posts

Posted 05 May 2005 - 12:40 AM

Well it could easily be more actors than just Craig, McMahon and Pierce..that's just guesswork. Craig in fact said that they were talking to a number of people.

#174 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 05 May 2005 - 12:41 AM

Well he is Brittish. What did ya expect? :)

View Post

Good one Tarl. LOL

View Post


LOL again. :) Buy, hey, at least we have Bond - you guys have Ice Cube as XXX. :)

#175 Tarl_Cabot

Tarl_Cabot

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10505 posts
  • Location:The Galaxy of Pleasure

Posted 05 May 2005 - 12:42 AM

Hey Loomis, I did see the trailor to 'Zorro 2 ' and it looks ok...but i think they hired him for low salary(aren't all Bond directors contracted out through K-mart?) and didn't want to take any risks as usual (*cough* Tarantino *cough*).

#176 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 05 May 2005 - 12:45 AM

[quote name='tdalton' date='5 May 2005 - 00:40']If you don't cast Bond until a month or two before shooting begins, then the film will be a mess and it will turn out to be bad enough to rival DAD for the worst film in the series.

#177 Tarl_Cabot

Tarl_Cabot

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10505 posts
  • Location:The Galaxy of Pleasure

Posted 05 May 2005 - 12:45 AM

Well he is Brittish. What did ya expect? :)

View Post

Good one Tarl. LOL

View Post


LOL again. :) Buy, hey, at least we have Bond - you guys have Ice Cube as XXX. :)

View Post


Touche. :) :) :)


But we have....

Jason Bourne! :) :) :)

#178 Loomis

Loomis

    Commander CMG

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 21862 posts

Posted 05 May 2005 - 12:49 AM

But we have....

Jason Bourne:)  :)  :)

View Post


Oh, right, rolling out the big guns, I see. Okay, okay, you win. :)

Re: your point about the lack of risk-taking, it's sad that we've had the rumoured CASINO ROYALE star/director combos of:

Brosnan and Tarantino;

Craig and Vaughn;

Owen and Campbell;

but we may end up with Brosnan and Campbell or McMahon and Campbell.

#179 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 05 May 2005 - 12:50 AM

[quote name='Loomis' date='4 May 2005 - 19:45'][quote name='tdalton' date='5 May 2005 - 00:40']If you don't cast Bond until a month or two before shooting begins, then the film will be a mess and it will turn out to be bad enough to rival DAD for the worst film in the series.

#180 Bondian

Bondian

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8019 posts
  • Location:Soufend-On-Sea, Mate. England. UK.

Posted 05 May 2005 - 12:51 AM

[quote name='Loomis' date='5 May 2005 - 01:49'][quote name='Tarl_Cabot' date='5 May 2005 - 00:45']But we have....

Jason Bourne!