504 replies to this topic

[deth]

At this point, Im kinda hoping it's some unknown guy...

[Eye Of The Tiger]

It's not going to be Craig, trust me!!!

[Pal]

I wish I could believe you. I seriously hope he's audtioning for Le Chiffre opposite my hope, Alex O'Lachlan as Bond.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

The guy just doesn't cut it for me.
He looks like a lesser good looking version of Ed Harris [only with hair].

I might be in the minority, but I was holding out for McMahon.

[spynovelfan]

He does look like Hoagy, though, doesn't he?

I think if they cast him, lots of people will think Yikes. Don't want to see him. The remainder will go and will report back 'Yeah, I know he doesn't look as good as Brosnan. But man, is he cool. You have to see this film...' It could just work.

'Course, it's a big risk.

[Qwerty]

It's not going to be Craig, trust me!!!

Why?

[Onlooker]

I might be in the minority, but I was holding out for McMahon.

You're definitely not alone.

[Skudor]

I need to see Layer Cake... but just judging from the guy's pictures he just doesn't strike me as James Bond material. And it doesn't quite fit in with the younger Bond - although of course nothing is set in stone yet. If Craig will indeed be the guy, then I'm sure it's because he can look the part. I just haven't seen him look the part yet. In my view he's not many notches above Ewan Stewart in the looks department - and looks count when it comes to Bond!

[bondgirl_2170]

looking @ the pic he has something of Sean Connery in his younger years

xxx
linda

[hrabb04]

Yeah, that would be true if Connery had gotten his face smashed to a bloody pulp.

[Spurrier]

What kind of experience does Craig have in carrying out the light comedy that comes with the part?

If he turns out to be the new Bond, all I can say is: they could have done better.

[hrabb04]

I think the guy who played Napoleon Dynamite would be a better choice.

[zencat]

Yeah we heard you the first time, hrabb04. It's getting old.

[Turn]

If he turns out to be the new Bond, all I can say is: they could have done better.

If you mean by hiring Clive Owen or Hugh Jackman or someone, perhaps. But how do you know beyond that? Too many people are complaining about certain pictures of Craig and judging him on those. Bond should be a little more about attitude more than looks, IMO. Any pretty boy can get a girl, but the guys with attitude can do it also and that's a must for Bond. Connery had it by the ton.

I am more and more comfortable with Craig as opposed to the Croatian and the 20-somethings.

[Forever007]

If EON goes with Daniel Craig then they will be taking a major risk with the "image" of James Bond, but not the quality of the character itself. Craig is a fine actor and will bring a new dimension to the character of Bond as a ruthless killer. What concerns most fans I'm sure is he will not sit well with the majority of "commercial" Bond fans who are used to over the top stunts with tongue in cheek humor. Even though Brosan's films, since Goldeneye, have been very mediocre at best they were still very successful due to his acceptance by "commercial" Bond fans. Craig will have to be spectacular to even come close to Brosnan's appeal.

[Righty007]

I have a feeling Daniel Craig is James Bond #6. He's a bad choice but I'm warming up to him.

[hrabb04]

Yeah we heard you the first time, hrabb04. It's getting old.

So are the rumors. I am sorry if my humor is not permitted here. I don't have a license to wit like Jim and all the rest.

[dinovelvet]

I might be in the minority, but I was holding out for McMahon.

You're definitely not alone.

Count me in too!

If nothing else, McMahon would give a PERFECT reading of the line "The bitch is dead now"

[K1Bond007]

If EON goes with Daniel Craig then they will be taking a major risk with the "image" of James Bond, but not the quality of the character itself. Craig is a fine actor and will bring a new dimension to the character of Bond as a ruthless killer. What concerns most fans I'm sure is he will not sit well with the majority of "commercial" Bond fans who are used to over the top stunts with tongue in cheek humor. Even though Brosan's films, since Goldeneye, have been very mediocre at best they were still very successful due to his acceptance by "commercial" Bond fans. Craig will have to be spectacular to even come close to Brosnan's appeal.

Well to be honest, it wouldn't be the first time that a Bond wasn't overwhelmingly loved. Lazenby and Dalton both weren't widely accepted, but both have a sizable following and both brought something new to the Bond table that Connery, Moore, and Brosnan didn't. Not every actor is going to be a winner.

Maybe this is kinda like the Star Trek thing where every even (except for the latest ones) films are deemed great, but the odds suck. For Bond, the Odds were successful, but the evens not-so-much. Doesn't hurt the franchise to have a Lazenby or Dalton every once in a while (I liked both). Brings depth to the character. Lucky Bond #7 may be the next Connery, Moore, or Brosnan.

[Slaezenger]

Don't panic! This is just a summery of the current Craig whatnot. All we can really offer is confirmation that the Craig candidacy is VERY real.

..I am so very sorry to hear it. Miscasting of the first water, imo...

[Pussfeller]

Yeah we heard you the first time, hrabb04. It's getting old.

So are the rumors. I am sorry if my humor is not permitted here. I don't have a license to wit like Jim and all the rest.

Hmmm. Developing a persecution complex, Hrabb04?

[Stax]

If James Bond is merely just a good looking guy in a tux then, wow, he's a pretty useless, shallow character. What makes him different then from some action hero on any given TV show? Bond is an ACTOR's role and Craig is an actor. Is it risky? Yes, and that's what makes it so damn exciting a prospect. Do you know how rare it is for Hollywood to ever take a risk on anything? James Bond is a far more resilient character and franchise than people give it credit for. Considering there are only 2 types of stories you'll see in the mainstream media about Bond nowadays -- 1) Bond is dead, or 2) who is the next Bond? -- perhaps casting Craig will be just the shot in the arm this series needs. If they cast yet another handsome face in a tux then it'll be tough for them to top Brosnan in that dept. Really, what exactly will some pretty boy actor bring to the table besides their looks? I think it diminishes Bond to just some guy in a suit, like Batman had become before Bale (an actor) showed people why he matters as a character. Bottom line, if they cast Craig they'll be issuing a challenge. There will then be an interest factor with Casino Royale that you probably wouldn't have otherwise. "Who is this new Bond guy? This IS different." Even if it's only for one film, I think the Bond franchise needs to be 100% daring this time out. Bond will survive if the gamble doesn't pay off.

[Pussfeller]

I agree, Stax. I'm not opposed to Craig being cast. Whoever they cast, CR is going to be the most interesting Bond film in years.

[K1Bond007]

Good post Stax, I totally agree.

[Spoon]

If James Bond is merely just a good looking guy in a tux then, wow, he's a pretty useless, shallow character.

You're setting up a false dichotomy though, IMO. Yeah, I would rather have Craig than a mannequin like Purefoy who looks the part and has no charisma. And I'd rather have Craig than someone like McMahon who looks the part (more than Craig, anyway) and has the "wrong" kind of charisma. Being able to act the part is more important than looking the part. I do agree with that...

But... why can't we get someone who can act the part, and look the part? Why do we have to settle for one or the other? Someone like Davenport or Butler, IMO, can do both. Let's take it as a given that Casino Royale isn't a total departure like Licence To Kill or a Bourne ripoff, but rather is a "gritty for Bond" entry like For Your Eyes Only or The Living Daylights: that it still maintains the occasional one-liner, seduction scene, etc., but is just less centered around that kind of stuff. Assuming that, as I think is very likely... you could write the same CR script for Davenport or Butler that you would write for Craig. They would act it just as well. And audiences would take one look at the poster and think, "Yup, that's 007." You still get your "reboot", you still get your change in tone for the series, and yet there is no downside to it!

In fact, if you wrote the same script for all those actors and the script hinged upon 007 being new to the Service, Davenport or Butler would not just be able to act it as well as Craig, they'd act it better. Isn't a major part of Craig's appeal supposed to be that he does at least look and act like someone who has been around the block a few times and knows how to handle himself? Casting him as an inexperienced rookie goes a huge way towards ruining the one thing that would make him good for Bond.

Edited by Spoon, 18 September 2005 - 07:05 AM.

[Stax]

Would it be ideal if the new actor looked more like Bond? Sure, I guess. Christian Bale nailed both Batman and Bruce Wayne. He looked the part and could act. But so far all the actors that seem right for the part acting and looks wise -- say, Clive Owen and Dougray Scott -- seem to have been ruled out due to age. It's the rookie element of the story that's nixed some of the better contenders. As for Davenport and Butler, well, I haven't seen JD in anything but Mr. Ripley and Pirates so I don't know what to make of him as 007. Butler might not be bad. He has that rogue quality to him and played a Bond sort in the Lara Croft sequel but there's something rather generic about him. I haven't seen him in any movie so far worth a damn, either. If Butler were cast I could live with it but I just don't think he's anything too interesting. He won't be to Bond what Bale was to Batman and I think the Bond franchise could use that sort of rebirth.

[dinovelvet]

If James Bond is merely just a good looking guy in a tux then, wow, he's a pretty useless, shallow character.

Maybe so, but it isn't up to the people posting on Bond fansites. Whether we like it or not, the public perception of James Bond is that he's sexy, that's something that's been beaten and conditioned into three generations of moviegoers. They offered us a colder, less sexy 007 in the late 80s, and the response from the public was to go see Indiana Jones and Batman instead. I don't think its a coincidence that the least attractive of the 007s, Timothy Dalton, didn't connect with audiences in the same way that Sean, Rog, and Pierce did.
If Craig is cast, my prediction is that the public reaction will be overwhelmingly negative. Sure, there'll be a few pockets of support here and there amongst fans, and certain women, but in the mainstream press there'll be photos of him put next to pictures of Connery and Brosnan, and he'll look like a very distant third place in that particular matchup. As others have noticed, in that Brosnan/Craig photo, even with his comic beard Pierce still looks every inch the suave superspy, and Craig looks like a waiter. It would be the biggest casting risk in the whole 40 year franchise, yeah I mean even more of a gamble than Lazenby, who at least looked good on the posters.

(more from Stax)
>Bottom line, if they cast Craig they'll be issuing a challenge. There will then >be an interest factor with Casino Royale that you probably wouldn't have >otherwise. "Who is this new Bond guy? This IS different." Even if it's only for >one film, I think the Bond franchise needs to be 100% daring this time out. >Bond will survive if the gamble doesn't pay off.

Yes, it would certainly be a challenge. And some folks will be up for it, but just as many people are likely to think "Who is this new Bond guy? He's no Pierce Brosnan/Sean Connery" and stay at home, or go watch Mission Impossible III instead. It's Dalton all over again, but Dalton is Connery compared to Craig.
If that gamble doesn't pay off, I say it could be disastrous. What if they have to recast again after Casino Royale? 3 different Bonds in 3 movies? We have to go through this whole casting rumor mill routine again in 2007? It'll just reinforce the notion that EON don't know what they're doing.

To paraphrase Alec Trevelyan, "Good for Craig. Bad for Bond."

PS Having said all this, I'm not personally objecting to seeing Craig as Bond. But all of us here are going to see CR anyway even if Preston Michael Spears Federline is the new Bond.

[SecretAgentFan]

Okay. We

[Loomis]

Bottom line, if they cast Craig they'll be issuing a challenge.

Which is fine and welcome, but I wonder whether the challenge would be just too great. To quote dinovelvet: "It's Dalton all over again, but Dalton is Connery compared to Craig."

I also find it hard to believe that Craig would even be "gettable". Many far less famous, fashionable and successful actors seem to have publicly scorned the Bond role, on the grounds that it might damage a career. So why would Craig, of all people, be interested, especially as he'd be walking into a firestorm of controversy that, thanks to the enduring the nature of Bond fandom, would last the rest of his life?

I don't know. I think I'll be split right down the middle in two very extreme ways if Craig is hired: part of me will be absolutely delighted to see Sony and Eon taking a tremendous risk and casting the hugely talented and immensely cool star of LAYER CAKE as Bond; and part of me will be unbelievably baffled as to why they should have chosen to do that, after apparently many months of testing virtually every British and Commonwealth actor we've ever heard of, and pessimistic about the future of the franchise.

I mean, I'm all for a bit of risk and challenge with CASINO ROYALE, just as I like good food (and the Bond series has for many years definitely been a case of munching at McDonalds rather than savouring at Sardi's), but being presented with Craig as the new 007 strikes me as not so much like being wined and dined in the way I'd wish, as akin to being made to gorge myself to death in one sitting on way too much very rich grub, like in the film LA GRANDE BOUFFE. Craig would have his moments, certainly, but ultimately he'd be just too extreme a new direction. And could be fatal.

[Antiriad]

If this becomes fact, what is it with the Broccolis?

Roughly every 18 years they seem to cast a inappropriate (not to mention ugly) actor for the part of James Bond and try to create a highbrow film that mainstream cinema audiences are not interested in. Meanwhile the right actor for the role is delayed several years for them to realise the error of their ways whilst the box office takings get a pounding.

The success of the Bond films is variations on a theme, where the audience gets what its expecting: megalomaniac villians, despotic schemes to be foiled, psychotic henchmen, babes galore, exciting action sequences, breathtaking stunts, gags at every opportunity and large enemy lairs that blow up at the end!

Only evolution is requred, not revolution: the franchise has only been a success when it does what it does best. Not when it tries to change completely and becomes too serious and Flemingesque. Even Cubby Broccoli knew that no-one would be interested in a younger Bond - what people want is what they were used to, just bigger and better.