504 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

From the CBn main page article "Is Craig Close to Becoming 007?":

Craig was "announced" as Bond by the worldwide media last year. Even news outlets like CNN reported this as fact.

A really minor and unimportant point, with no bearing on whatever's going on with Craig and Bond at the moment, and I feel a bit of a dweeb for pointing it out, but wasn't it in April this year, not last year?

Craig later told IGN.com he was offered the part by the studio (then MGM) but not Eon. Recently the Hollywood Reporter claimed that Barbara Broccoli liked Craig, but Michael G. Wilson did not (a CBn source disputes this, suggesting director Martin Campbell is the holdout on Craig, not Wilson).

One wonders just how big a stumbling block this could be. According to the Stax Report of a few days ago, Craig and Campbell "did not exactly hit it off when they had a meeting". If, as this seems to imply, the two men simply don't get along on a personal level, then it strikes me as highly unlikely that Craig will be Bond. I can't picture Broccoli and Wilson trying to force Craig on Campbell or hiring another director, one who'll be happy to work with Craig. Much easier to give Campbell a young unknown or whoever it is he wants than to have a Bond and a director who won't work well together.

Then, early this month, CBn broke the news in its monthly podcast that Daniel Craig was back in the running "in a major way" and would receive a screentest. At the time it was assumed this would be just one of several new screentests in the continued search for the new 007. However, no other names have emerged in this regard except the name of Daniel Craig.

I thought Karl Urban was also up for a screentest at round about the same time as Craig, or is that just an unconfirmed rumour?

However, in Layer Cake -- the film that appears to have brought him to the attention of Eon -- Craig successfully plays a 30-year-old.

Really? Is the character's age mentioned in the film? I can't remember.

The critical aspect of the current Casino Royale storyline seems to be less about age and more about Bond's first mission as a double-oh agent. Therefore, it is not inconceivable that a man who has already reached the rank of Commander in the Royal Navy, and has logged at least three successful missions as an Mi6 agent (one must kill three times to become a double-oh), would be in his thirties. In fact, might even be more conceivable.

That is true, even though it somehow seems more radical a move than having a 20-something 007 played by a Cavill or an O'Lachlan.

BTW, excellent article, zenmeister. Just how it should be done. If only other sites were so careful with their "news" articles.

[Pal]

I still don't understand who looked at Craig and said "that man should be James Bond! Lets give him a screen test!". The only movie I've seen him in was Road to Perdition and the only person in that movie who had any screen presence besides Tom Hanks was Jude Law. Danial Craig was so memerable in that movie, that I didn't remember his name, his character's name, what he looked like, and that in no way, shape, or form did he look even remotely like a James Bond. And if I'm not mistaken, he was way smaller than Tom Hanks. Maybe somebody could answer this for me: if it hadn't been for his little spur of the moment Bond rumors back in March or whenever, would any of us have watched Layer Cake, let alone know who he is?

[rogermoore007]

Well I guess I can't be too disappointed because danny c was number 3 on my list for bond (1. Broz, 2. Hugh Grant, 3. Dan Craig). Although I'd love broz to be back which I still hope he is, craig would be ok

[return of the saint]

I voted NO to the reinvention idea.

I don't like the idea of 'reinventing' Bond - I mean I don't think Bond needs reinventing. Rather than 'reinventing' I think they need to look at some elements that worked in past films and in the books. Closely examine Connery's animalistic Bond, be inspired by Flemings Bond, perhaps pay particular attention to OHMSS and FRWL (books and films), be considerate of Dalton's brutal yet human Bond and remember to add just a pinch of English pomposity (Roger Moore take a bow). Mix that into contempoary popular cinema - Bourne+Tarentino stuff (which both derive in part from Bond films+books anyway) and there you have it. No dramatic 'reinvention' just better use of already existing elements.

(Why is it that so many modern filmmakers feel they are better equiped to rewrite/reinvent a character's history (personality and appearance) than those who know the characters from long standing experience, or even those who actually created them in the first place? - I am talking Burton, Nolan, Singer and Raimi here)

Anyway...I don't think they need overtly state that the next actor is not the same character that Brosnan, Dalton, Moore, Lazemby and Connery were. I don't think they need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don't think they need to 'reinvent' at the expense of all that has gone before. I think it can appear business as usual - whilst actualy being quite the most revolutionary Bond film since TLD (FYEO, OHMSS, etc).

I want this to be a cathphrase.

"Reinvigoration not reinvention"

And the actor I feel could achieve this???

(This is the Daniel Craig thread right?)

Edited by return of the saint, 18 September 2005 - 03:47 PM.

[zencat]

From the CBn main page article "Is Craig Close to Becoming 007?":

Craig was "announced" as Bond by the worldwide media last year. Even news outlets like CNN reported this as fact.

A really minor and unimportant point, with no bearing on whatever's going on with Craig and Bond at the moment, and I feel a bit of a dweeb for pointing it out, but wasn't it in April this year, not last year?

Doh! Yes. Sorry. I changed that (I think I made this error in another article as well).

Then, early this month, CBn broke the news in its monthly podcast that Daniel Craig was back in the running "in a major way" and would receive a screentest. At the time it was assumed this would be just one of several new screentests in the continued search for the new 007. However, no other names have emerged in this regard except the name of Daniel Craig.

I thought Karl Urban was also up for a screentest at round about the same time as Craig, or is that just an unconfirmed rumour?

Unconfirmed rumour.

However, in Layer Cake -- the film that appears to have brought him to the attention of Eon -- Craig successfully plays a 30-year-old.

Really? Is the character's age mentioned in the film? I can't remember.

Got that from someone here in the forums. Didn't check it out too hard because it helped make my point os nicely.

BTW, excellent article, zenmeister. Just how it should be done. If only other sites were so careful with their "news" articles.

Thank you, Loomis. And thanks for helping me make these corrections.

[zencat]

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.

Wow. Very nicely said, Stax, and I agree 100%.

[luciusgore]

Daniel Craig looks a little bit too much like Jeremy Irons to be Bond.

[tdalton]

Hopefully all of these rumors have some basis to them and Daniel Craig lands the part of James Bond. It would be great, IMO, to have an unconventional choice rather than just another pretty face in a tux, as some others have said in this thread.

[spynovelfan]

Daniel Craig looks a little bit too much like Jeremy Irons to be Bond.

But Jeremy Irons would have been a fantastic Bond!

I suspect Craig is the next Bond - CBN ran an article about Campbell being very close to signing, and then he signed. I reckon the same might be the case here. And I think Craig will be a risk, but he'll work. He'll live better than he reads.

A few years ago, I interviewed the American writer Donald Hamilton on the phone. Hamilton created the character Matt Helm in 1960, in the novel DEATH OF A CITIZEN. If you've read it or any of the sequels, you'll know they share a good deal in common with Fleming's books - they're tough, taut little thrillers with a laconic sense of humour. With the Bond films at their peak, a production company approached Hamilton with the idea of making adaptations of his books: faithful ones. But then, as they were putting the deal together they came back to him and told him that Dean Martin had got in touch and was looking for a film vehicle, and he thought Helm might be it. So they gave Hamilton a choice: he could let them continue to try to find the funding for the faithful adaptation they had been planning, and they could maybe win an Oscar or two with something in the vein of THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD. Or he could just take the massive cash pay-off the Martin deal meant, but prepare for a very commercial series of films that had nothing to do with his books. Hamilton chose the latter option, which in hindsight seems clear was a mistake. I wonder if Eon are now not going to try to make a reasonably faithful critically acclaimed version of CASINO ROYALE.

Or I could just be going mad.

[Alex Zamudio]

I've saying all along that Craig is exactly what the series needs, a 360 degree turn (if it is a new era) although I've had my Owen and "Bring back Brosnan" fan phases, I've always been intrigued by Daniel Craig, who I find a very cool actor and a striking screen presence, he would play bond as a real dangerous SPY and someone who really has a License to kill, not to hit the Playboy mansion...

Of all the eras, I think Brosnan's was one of the least serious

Pussfeller we get the point you don't like the Brosnan era!! must you slam Brosnan no matter the thread or discussion? I respect your views and agree with you in some points, but come on, let us enjoy these films, Pierce is gone, just Live and Let Die!!!

Regards.

Edited by Alex Zamudio, 18 September 2005 - 08:10 PM.

[Loomis]

I wonder if Eon are now not going to try to make a reasonably faithful critically acclaimed version of CASINO ROYALE.

So "Mikey and Babs" are ultrahardcore, Fleming-thumping literary Bond purists all of a sudden, determined to cast a Hoagy Carmichael lookalike, despite the facts that the series has done extraordinarily well for 40+ years without such actors, and that they could have been as radical, gritty, serious, etc. as they pleased long before now but for some reason always chose to make fantasy popcorn blockbusters with mass appeal?

I don't buy it. And why hire Martin Campbell if you're trawling for critical acclaim? Why not someone like Stephen Frears, director of the proposed Jinx spinoff?

[Frosty]

***NEWS FLASH***

DANIEL CRAIG CAST AS DOORMAN AT CASINO ROYALE! :



I'm sorry, but that's all I see, when I look at that picture.

[Donovan]

For the sole purpose of jinxing Daniel Craig's chances of becoming James Bond, I'd like to sumarily announce that:

DANIEL CRAIG IS THE NEW JAMES BOND!!!!

Now all we have to do is wait.

[Pussfeller]

In that picture, he reminds me of Frank Sinatra.

[Frosty]

In that picture, he reminds me of Frank Sinatra.

The difference is, most people don't mind seeing Sinatra in a CASINO!!.

[Craptacular]

I voted NO to the reinvention idea.

I don't like the idea of 'reinventing' Bond - I mean I don't think Bond needs reinventing.  Rather than 'reinventing' I think they need to look at some elements that worked in past films and in the books.
...
Anyway...I don't think they need overtly state that the next actor is not the same character that Brosnan, Dalton, Moore, Lazemby and Connery were. I don't think they need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  I don't think they need to 'reinvent' at the expense of all that has gone before.
...
"Reinvigoration not reinvention"
...

Agreed for the most part. I think that the producers' reported fear (?) of the Bourne series (does it even qualify as a series with only 2 successful films and no commitment to further installments as of yet?) is driving them in ways it shouldn't.

1. Young Bond. Henry Cavill? What kind of an audience are they going for? Might as well put pretenses aside and cast Justin Timberlake in that case.
2. Young Bond, with no gadgets. Essentially, they're saying "Jason Bourne with an accent and a suit". Please.

The producers may be overlooking the real reason for the waning popularity of Bond films. Overall film quality. Who thought any of the past few films had a good script? An original plot? Believeable effects (Hello, Mr. B-Movie Shiny Metal Electric Armor in a Giant CG Flying Fortress, your table is ready.)? Good casting*cough*DeniseRichards*cough*?

Daniel Craig isn't a bad choice in the way that casting somebody in their 20s would be, so I can't complain too much when that kind of change is an alternative. His charisma lands closer to the Connery part of the Bond spectrum (maybe a little Dalton as well), yet he still reminds me more of a Steve McQueen type than a Connery. Anyway I'm fine with somebody making the decision based more on charisma, style and talent than purely on looks.

Otherwise if they were going younger, and with everyone and their dog getting a shot at the tux, I wonder why Jonny Lee Miller never got a screentest.

[tdalton]

I just don't see what the problem with Daniel Craig is. Fleming described Bond as looking like Hoagy Carmichael in Casino Royale, and judging from the pictures in the CBn front page article today, Daniel Craig does have a striking resemblance to Carmichael. Maybe we're finally going to get a true adaptation of a Fleming novel, from top to bottom, where we get a faithful story, as well as an actor playing Bond who is closer to what Ian Fleming himself described in the novel than most of the actors to have played the part, except for perhaps Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton.

[Marquis]

I just don't see what the problem with Daniel Craig is.  Fleming described Bond as looking like Hoagy Carmichael in Casino Royale, and judging from the pictures in the CBn front page article today, Daniel Craig does have a striking resemblance to Carmichael.  Maybe we're finally going to get a true adaptation of a Fleming novel, from top to bottom, where we get a faithful story, as well as an actor playing Bond who is closer to what Ian Fleming himself described in the novel than most of the actors to have played the part, except for perhaps Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton.

If you can't see why people are so opposed to Craig after reading the past 13 pages, i suspect you never will.

[spynovelfan]

I'd love to see Craig in CASINO ROYALE. My problem with him stems more from the worry that he wouldn't be suitable for subsequent Bond films. Can the series really survive with Craig playing a straightforward Brosnan-style adventure following his first film? Can it survive them not doing that, ie another dark film following CR? Can it survive once again having an actor play Bond for just one film? Those are my concerns. For a reasonably faithful adaptation of this novel, I think Craig is perfect. He's got a lot of the Connery cool factor, and once they've dressed him up, there will be no problem believing he is Bond:



He'll also be perfect in the torture sequence (whereas Brosnan wouldn't be, in my view):



Come on, people. It's the Bond film you've been crying out for! James Bond is not pretty.

[Loomis]

the Bourne series (does it even qualify as a series with only 2 successful films and no commitment to further installments as of yet?)

It looks as though there will be a third film, THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM. All that is known about the project so far is that Tony Gilroy, who worked on the first two, has been hired to write the script, and that a summer 2007 release seems likely.

Back to Craig: I don't think he's a bad choice for Bond, so much as an extremely unlikely one.

I have the feeling that there are quite a few posters here who love the Flemings and the '60s films and are disappointed by most of Eon's recent output. They (we) see Craig as someone who'll take the series in the direction of "grit", "realism", Hoagy Carmichael and "proper" James Bond, and champion him for that reason. Nothing wrong with that, although it hardly seems a likely move by the folks who've just given us DIE ANOTHER DAY, but I get the sense of a lot of fans talking themselves into the idea that Craig is basically signed, sealed and delivered as the new 007, and it may well be the case that a massive letdown is just around the corner.

[Marquis]

...but I get the sense of a lot of fans talking themselves into the idea that Craig is basically signed, sealed and delivered as the new 007, and it may well be the case that a massive letdown is just around the corner.

Fingers crossed..

[David Schofield]

Daniel Craig looks a little bit too much like Jeremy Irons to be Bond.

I suspect Craig is the next Bond - CBN ran an article about Campbell being very close to signing, and then he signed. I reckon the same might be the case here. And I think Craig will be a risk, but he'll work. He'll live better than he reads.

Or I could just be going mad.

Not Alex O'Lachlan, then?

[tdalton]

[quote name='Marquis' date='19 September 2005 - 05:22'][quote name='tdalton' date='19 September 2005 - 03:10']I just don't see what the problem with Daniel Craig is.

[Shrublands]

I just don't see what the problem with Daniel Craig is.  Fleming described Bond as looking like Hoagy Carmichael in Casino Royale, and judging from the pictures in the CBn front page article today, Daniel Craig does have a striking resemblance to Carmichael.  Maybe we're finally going to get a true adaptation of a Fleming novel, from top to bottom, where we get a faithful story, as well as an actor playing Bond who is closer to what Ian Fleming himself described in the novel than most of the actors to have played the part, except for perhaps Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton.

If you can't see why people are so opposed to Craig after reading the past 13 pages, i suspect you never will.

I'll try to rephrase my statement. I can't see why casting someone who looks very much like what Fleming described in Casino Royale would be a problem. IMO, the picture of Hoagy Carmichael and the picture of Daniel Craig in the article on the front page of this site look very similar. Maybe I'm way off base. But, I've decided, that I'm just not going to talk about the new Bond or Casino Royale anymore because I've grown tired of seeing day after day of new rumor after new rumor. I think we all know that EON won't select Daniel Craig, so I don't see why we should get worked up over it anyway. I like Daniel Craig, but I know that I'm in an extreme minority on that topic, which means that EON would probably not be wise to make that selection.

Are you part of an

[Skudor]

Danny Craig would be an interesting choice, that much is certain. Personally I prefer my Bonds be outside the pig-ugly category of actors, and in some photos DC does indeed fall outside that category. If he's the man, Casino Royale will be a very interesting movie indeed, and likely to stay close to the source in more aspects than we are used to.

I wouldn't buy Daniel Craig as a 28 year old though...

[hcmv007]

Memo to Cambell, Broccoli and Wilson:



CAST DANIEL CRAIG AS 007 NOW!


Thank you,

hcmv007

[Alessandra]

Well, I've gone from thinking that he'd be a bold and brilliant choice to thinking that he'd actually be a downright stupid choice.

There's risk-taking and then there's lunatic, suicidal risk-taking.

Listen, I read the Flemings, I like Dalton, I like LICENCE TO KILL (no, I'm not asking for a medal or trying to paint myself as the ultimate purist Bond fan), and also Bourne and "gritty espionage thrillers" and so on, but when even I would find it very hard to accept Craig as 007, I think there'd be a real problem making him a Bond with mass appeal. Especially when he tends to look like a raddled old dosser.

No, it just won't work. I don't care how good an actor he is. I don't care how cool he is. I think casting him as Bond would be a major mistake, and possibly a fatal one for the franchise.

If anything, I think the series needs to go in a more lighthearted direction after the excessively po-faced eras of Dalton and Brosnan. Watched NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN earlier today, and was struck by how it refuses to take itself seriously, how free it is from any kind of self-importance or desire to be "gritty" or "relevant". And how much fun it is. Anyone know if Hugh Grant's been in talks?

TOTALLY agree Loomis. I mean TOTALLY.
this guy CANNOT be Bond. One thing is to "more or less" have the looks, another is to look as if you "almost have one foot in the grave" as we say in Italian! lol
Aside from looking DEFINITELY old (And there's NO makeup that can fix that face), there's another important thing: he doesn't have THE STYLE and THE CLASS. And Bond DEFINITELY has style. Bond IS pure class.
Class doesn't come with nice clothes. Style and class are something you have or don't have. I say, in Italian, "class is not water." (so something not everyone has).
I'll give you some examples... take Rene Russo, who is a goodlooking woman and funny, and all that. But she does NOT have class. They tried to make her look like a real stylish lady in that horrible movie with Pierce and she STILL was TOTALLY UNBELIEVABLE in that part. You could see it was all made up, you could see she wasn't being herself.. Style and class are something you have or don't have. Audrey Hepburn and Grace Kelly and Jackie Kennedy had LOTS OF style and class, Rene Russo can just DREAM about it. Michelle Pfeiffer has class, Angelina Jolie will NEVER have class even in an Armani or Valentino dress.
Same applies to men: you can dress Pierce Brosnan with a black sack for the trash, and he'd still have style! You could've dressed Cary Grant with the same thing, and he would STILL be classy and stylish.
Dalton has class too, and so does Roger Moore.
Now this Craig character.. he just does NOT have it, period. I can just picture him drinking a Martini... with the same grace one has when handling a pint of beer in a pub!! Even if acting and trying to make it look classy, I would just NOT BUY it. And so would MANY others (women especially).
Hugh Jackman and Clive Owen both have class and style.. it's innate.. it's a "congenital illness". lol
So sorry Mr Craig.. no can do.

[Loomis]

As tdalton puts it:

I think we all know that EON won't select Daniel Craig, so I don't see why we should get worked up over it anyway.

Says it all.

[SecretAgentFan]

Could we please have another rumor? This topic is exhausted.

[Agent 76]

Could we please have another rumor? This topic is exhausted.

exactly.