268 replies to this topic

[Agent Provocateur]

Too funny, spynovelfan!

[Daltonfan]

From an interview with Matthew Vaughn at Hollywood Reporter:

Hollywood took note. Vaughn even met with the Broccolis about directing the next Bond, possibly with "Layer Cake" star Daniel Craig. "They loved him more than me," he says ruefully. "I would have nailed Bond."

[Seannery]

It does look like Daniel Craig on the heels of Layer Cake premiering in the USA is a possiblilty of being the next Bond. BUT lets not get carried away yet--remember that a lot of people were SURE that Clive Owen was the next Bond on the heels of Sin City premiering in the USA. Lets see if this Craig "heat" is still going after the Layer Cake promoting is done--maybe it will and then maybe it won't.

That said if Eon picks Craig it would be a ballsy and risky move to pick such an unconventional Bond--it may be a bold and great success OR it could simply not click at all with general audience and bomb. Compared to a number of other candidates Daniel Craig is a high risk roll of the dice--fitting in a way since Bond is a master gambler. BUT the question remains will Craig become Bond to the general fan? If not we can get snake eyes--funny since Craig's intense stare can be seen as reptillian to some.

[Skudor]

Here's a thought, and bear with me in the highly likely case someone has aired this before, but isn't it a tad convenient to have all this Bond buzz abour Craig when his new movie is coming out. I smell a publicity stunt.

[Bon-san]

...isn't it a tad convenient to have all this Bond buzz abour Craig when his new movie is coming out.  I smell a publicity stunt.

The thought had occurred to me.

[Seannery]

Here's a thought, and bear with me in the highly likely case someone has aired this before, but isn't it a tad convenient to have all this Bond buzz abour Craig when his new movie is coming out.  I smell a publicity stunt.

As I just mentioned above like Owen and Sin City the Buzz is getting higher as Layer Cake rolls out in the USA. It may not be a publicity stunt necessarily--it could be just the natural exposure to the media and the looming Bond decision and then the natural questions ensue.

My main point is we shouldn't get carried away with Craig buzz like we did with Owen. For argument's sake they could both very well be candidates BUT not the only ones. It could be very likely there are other candidates who are not promoting movies at the moment and are more under the media radar BUT are still serious candidates. So lets not assume that only the candidates we hearing about the most are serious candidates--remember that Daniel Craig said as much when he said he was among a NUMBER of candidates. He wasn't implying just one or two. And who knows a few candidates deeper under the radar may end up being EVEN more serious candidates--Zencat implied this may be so. The point is we still know too little to be sure about who may be the final candidates.

[Stephenson]

Initially, I doubt many reporters would have started asking the questions of Craig if a publicist or two hadn't dropped a line to the newspapers/T.V. stations suggesting it might be a good idea to bring up "Bond?" when interviewing him. Now, I think (like so many of these rumours) it has taken on a life of its own, so all Craig has to do is sit back with an innocent smile and answer in the typical enigmatic actor way, gaining lots of free press in the process. Frankly, given the open way he's talking about the process, I really don't think it's going to be him; maybe back when he was denying the initial rumour ....

[Martin Mystery]

The mysterious "Mister X" have contacted me again.
Nothing much this time:

<RUMOR ALERT>

Eon is so desperate that they have agreed to sign Craig for two films only, with an option for a third. CR will be a prequel set in modern times (as Martin Campbell said), done with flashbacks. They are casting for Vesper right now. LeCiffre has pretty much been chosen.

</RUMOR ALERT>

MM

[Loomis]

Eon is so desperate that....

How reassuring.

Thanks for the info, MM.

[Martin Mystery]

You're welcome.
Just promise me one thing: If this turns out to be BS don't shoot me. As I said before, I don't know this guy personally - hence the <RUMOR ALERT>

MM

[Seannery]

The mysterious "Mister X" have contacted me again.
Nothing much this time:

<RUMOR ALERT>

Eon is so desperate that they have agreed to sign Craig for two films only, with an option for a third. CR will be a prequel set in modern times (as Martin Campbell said), done with flashbacks. They are casting for Vesper right now. LeCiffre has pretty much been chosen.

</RUMOR ALERT>

MM

What does a prequel set in modern times with flashbacks mean?

[Loomis]

Just promise me one thing: If this turns out to be BS don't shoot me.

Of course not. I'm sure you're on the level, MM. Remains to be seen whether this info is true, of course, but I don't believe you're winding us up.

[Martin Mystery]

What does a prequel set in modern times with flashbacks mean?

That was his way of putting it. I guess it means that the stuff about Bonds first mission will be seen in flashbacks.

MM

[Loomis]

What does a prequel set in modern times with flashbacks mean?

That was his way of putting it. I guess it means that the stuff about Bonds first mission will be seen in flashbacks.

MM

And that would make sense, given that Craig doesn't exactly look like a spring chicken and would therefore be enormously unconvincing as the young Bond who's only recently joined the British secret service.

(Will Dean Gaffney be cast as the young version of Craig's 007, I wonder? )

[Martin Mystery]

Mister X strikes again:

<RUMOR ALERT>
"The orginal setting for the story will be 2006. But when the story starts to flashback to his early career it is still 2006 (in a sence, for instance the tech will still be advanced)."
</RUMOR ALERT>

So no Dean Gaffney, I guess.

MM

[Seannery]

MM I have no doubts about your sincerity BUT I do have doubts about your source. Someone can sound convincing but if we don't personally know them it's too large a leap of faith to believe. Maybe the person is genuine but maybe not--there's no way to tell, so skepticism is the wisest course.


MM let me ask you if Daniel Craig is signed up according to this guy then where is the announcement? When does this guy say the announcement will come?


Let me throw another log on the fire--not a Bon Fire instead a Bond Fire --someone who claims to have dealings with Eon very recently gave me a private message saying all the talk at Eon headquarters is of Pierce coming back as 007. This person says it's not a done deal BUT that is how it seems to be. This person seems very knowlegeable and "insidey" BUT since I don't know him in real life I can't verify anything at all. And I can't say who it was since it was a private note. So for what it is worth, there you go!

[Stephenson]

Mister X strikes again:

<RUMOR ALERT>
"The orginal setting for the story will be 2006. But when the story starts to flashback to his early career it is still 2006 (in a sence, for instance the tech will still be advanced)."
</RUMOR ALERT>

So no Dean Gaffney, I guess.

MM

This just sounds confusing ...

So we will have the story of young Bond, set in 2006 and played presumably by Daniel Craig, told by an old Bond ....
http://tammy78.hp.in...o.jp/gollum.gif

[spynovelfan]

Well, no, presumably Craig would play 'now Bond' and a younger actor 'then Bond'. I can't think of any actors who would convince as a younger version of Craig, though.

[Loomis]

I can't think of any actors who would convince as a younger version of Craig, though.

How about Mackenzie Crook?

[Seannery]

I can't think of any actors who would convince as a younger version of Craig, though.

How about Mackenzie Crook?

Only if the story was set in a concentration camp.

[spynovelfan]

He'd be perfect Loomis, but for the hair. It's just a little too light. Craig's isn't quite that blonde. Otherwise, yes, very much Fleming's character in CASINO ROYALE, there. And, of course, Crook has already played a misogysnistic, racist former member of the armed forces (well, TA). Nice pick. Here's mine:

[Loomis]

And, of course, Crook has already played a misogysnistic, racist former member of the armed forces (well, TA).

Very true - I'd forgotten about that. Actually, Gareth Keenan is very Fleming's Bond in some ways.

THE DRINKING AND THE HEDONISM:

"Just the eight pints for me last night, then. Oh, no! "Team leader and boss in drunken night out." Shock! horror! Going out with Oggy tomorrow night, then. That'll be be a quiet night in at the library... not!"

THE LADIES' MAN WITH SNAPPY QUIPS:

David Brent: Look at this - "Dutch girls must be punished for having big boobs". Now you do not punish a girl, Dutch or otherwise, for having big boobs.
Gareth: If anything they should be rewarded.

THE SQUARE-JAWED HERO WHO'S NOT ENTIRELY A POSTER BOY FOR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS:

Gareth: I work hard. I earn my keep. But unfortunately the history books are full of just people who toil and fight for worthy causes and the freedom of others.
Tim: That's the most profound thing you've ever said mate.
Gareth: Yeah and you don't want that only for foreigners, or women, or disableds to take advantage of it.
Tim: Can I withdraw my last comment?

THE GREAT LOVER:

"I can read women. You've got to know their wants and their needs. And that can be anything from making sure she's got enough money to buy groceries each week to making sure she's gratified sexually after intercourse."

THE RESOURCEFUL WARRIOR WITH AMAZING SURVIVAL SKILLS:

"I could catch a monkey. If I was starving I could. I'd make poison darts out of the poison of the deadly frogs. One milligram of that poison can kill a monkey. Or a man. Prick yourself and you'd be dead within a day. Or longer. Different frogs, different times."

THE ASSASSIN:

Tim: We were wondering if a military man like you, a soldier, er, could you give a man a lethal blow?
Gareth: If I was forced to, I could. If it was absolutely necessary, if he was attacking me.
Tim: What if he was coming, really hard?
Gareth: Yeah, if my life was in danger, yeah.
Dawn: And do you always imagine doing it face to face with a bloke, or could you take a man from behind?
Gareth: Either ways easy.
Dawn: So you could take a man from behind?
Gareth: Yeah.
Dawn: Lovely.

THE HOMOPHOBE:

"That's one reason why gays shouldn't be allowed into the army. Because if we're in battle, is he going to be looking at the enemy, or is he going to be looking at me and going "Ooh. He looks tasty in his uniform". And I'm not homophobic, all right? Come round, look at my CDs. You'll see Queen, George Michael, Pet Shop Boys. They're all bummers."

A BOND WITH A BROSNANESQUE EMOTIONAL SIDE:

"People look at me, they say he's tough, he was in the army he's gonna be hard, by the book. But I am caring, and sensitive. Isn't Schindler's list a brilliant film?"

THE GAMBLING MAN AND BRILLIANT CARD PLAYER:

Gareth: If you like Top Trumps, you should come to me. I've got about five different sets. Don't try to beat me at Monster Trucks, though, 'cos you won't. My speciality.
Rachel: Yeah, it's a game of chance though, isn't it? It's what you...
Gareth: No, it's not. I would know what cards you've got immediately just through what cards I've got. I used to play it by myself, with a dummy hand just testing out every different scenario of which cards would beat which other cards for hours, sometimes three or four at a time. But put in the work, the rewards are obvious. So I'd know exactly what card you've got in your hand from what cards I've got and I would know, probability wise, exactly what feature to pick on my card to defeat, statistically, any card that you could have in your hand at that precise moment. You will never win.
[pause]
Gareth: Could still be fun, though.

[spynovelfan]

You've sold me, Loomis. Crook for Bond.

But seriously now, I can't give credence to Craig being signed for two films and there being a flashback. The younger Bond would have to be a complete unknown, for financial reasons if nothing else. And unless they've got some amazingly charismatic guy who looks like he might grow up to be Daniel Craig in 10 or 15 years' time, who can act the part... I mean, is this likely? Craig is very, um, distinctive looking. And he looks older than his age. It's going to be something of a job to convince the world he's James Bond in his mid-late 30s. I think it might just work - but trying to do that and convince them that he's the younger model, too? This doesn't sound a sane plan to me.

Unless Crook's quite cheap.

[spynovelfan]

Actually, the best candidate I can think of (the only one, at the moment) who might be able to pull off being a younger Daniel Craig as James Bond, would be Jack Davenport.

Craig (on the right):



Davenport:

[Stephenson]

What Mr. X is saying sounds more likely that Craig is playing Bond on his first mission (in some undefined past) and in 2006 (like Goldeneye). Otherwise, the only way I can see them doing this is having Craig play Bond on his first mission in 2006 (a complete re-start), with the story being told by an older Bond sometime in the future. None of this makes much sense to me ... definitely hit myself a few too many times with a stupid stick this morning.

Edited by Stephenson (canoe2), 06 May 2005 - 07:57 PM.

[Martin Mystery]

What Mr. X is saying sounds more likely that Craig is playing Bond on his first mission (in some undefined past) and in 2006 (like Goldeneye).

This is indeed what he meant. That's how I understood it, anyway.

MM

[spynovelfan]

No, that makes sense, Stephenson. But man, is this some risk-taking we'd be talking about. A guy who looks like Steve McQueen's uglier brother's corpse playing a rookie Bond in a contemporary setting - both in and out of flashback.

They might be better off having Q come up with a way of making Bond himself invisible.

Edited by spynovelfan, 06 May 2005 - 08:04 PM.

[Stephenson]

If the script is strong enough to sustain what is essentially a gimmick for an entire film rather than just a PTS, and Craig maximaizes this charm I keep hearing about, I think it could be one of the more interesting Bonds in a while. ASSUMING any of this is going to happen ...

[Loomis]

No, that makes sense, Stephenson. But man, is this some risk-taking we'd be talking about. A guy who looks like Steve McQueen's uglier brother's corpse playing a rookie Bond in a contemporary setting - both in and out of flashback.

They might be better off having Q come up with a way of making Bond himself invisible.

Well, I guess time travel could play some role in the film. After an invisible car, outer space death rays and FACE/OFF-style surgery, something like time travel or teleportation would seem a logical next step for the franchise. Gotta keep pleasing those young audiences, I guess, and those casual viewers who don't care about the literary Bond and just want a couple of hours of escapist action-packed fun.

Daniel Craig and Mackenzie Crook as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in a gritty, hard-edged, back-to-basics adaptation of "Casino Royale", updated by Purvis and Wade for the 21st century and featuring time travel? Anyone want to spend a couple of hundred million dollars on that?

[Bon-san]

I'm a huge champion of Eon taking some risks and really going for it.

But, (and no offense to anyone posting in this thread) the way the talk is going here, I'm really beginning to pine for DAD II.