504 replies to this topic

[Alessandra]

Craig's look just doesn't cut the mustard as a Bond.

The movie Bond must be exceptionally good looking. Connery was sex on legs and has been voted sexiest movie star in several polls. Moore may not have exuded raw sex appeal like Connery, but he was very handsome with a facial symmetry that gave him screen presence and Brosnan too a very handsome man, also topping polls in the best looks and sexiest department.

Craig looks like an ordinary bloke. If you went to any given crowded pub, you'd see at least a dozen Craigs.

Well said Bond Bug!!

[Seannery]

[quote name='zencat' date='18 September 2005 - 17:02'][quote name='Stax' date='17 September 2005 - 21:04']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

[Bond Bombshell]

I think I've seen most of Craig's work over the years, and I'm definitely a fan so I don't want to be too rude about him. Anyone remember his appearance in Sharpe in the early 90's? He was cast against type in this, as an upper class officer who somehow managed to give Sean Bean a good hiding despite being half his size. The trouble is that I just cannot get over the fact that he is a very average 5'9", has a slim build, blond hair, unconventional looks, and seems older than his actual years.

Never mind. I'm sure if he is cast the audience will ignore the fact that he looks nothing like the previous Bonds, and will go into immediate raptures because he resembles Hoagy Carmichael. In fact, I can see a big worldwide Hoagy revival. There will be a big demand for his old films, and once again Hoagy's songs will storm the charts.

Sorry if this is sarcastic, but I'm always puzzled when the Hoagy factor is trotted out on forums to support Craig, or any other candidate for that matter. How many punters who go to see Bond films these days have even read Fleming? How many remember the Hoagy quote or have even heard of him? How many know what he looks like or go to the trouble of looking him up on the net? I think that we are talking about less than 1%.

My apologies to Fleming purists who may believe that I'm being blasphemous, but I'm just trying to be realistic. In the context of over 40 years of movie Bond, comparisons to Hoagy Carmichael seem irrelevant to me.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to see a back to basics, Fleming based, Casino Royale starring Daniel Craig, but surely purists can see that this represents a massive gamble that could have massive consequences. My preference is for a less gimmicky and edgier film, but let's not invite problems by departing too far from Bond precedent, especially when it comes to casting Bond.

[spynovelfan]

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?

Of course not. But I think it's common currency that the Bond films have to go darker now or it risks sinking. The groundswell of opinion among hardcore and casual fans alike is fairly clear on that, I reckon.

Just read Craig's interview in GQ. He does want the gig. Some highlights:

'"I can't go into details, but I just think they're in a huge transition period. They need to do something, and if I was being honest, I'd love to play him, but I'm just not sure it's possible. The problem is, it's always looking back. It has to be because it was brilliant when it started, and it slowly got worse and worse. I think Pierce Brosnan did a fantastic job when he came in, but that was ten years ago. And the world is a much more cynical place now. And spies are [censored]ing nasty c***s, and I feel that's the way they have to go. And I don't know how you do that. I don't know how you make it so you fear for that man's life... Because why worry? It's James Bond! He's Superman, for 's sake!"

Presumably, the only way they can do that would be if they announced this was the last Bond film, which would then throw the whole thing open, and Bond could be played for real, and he could meet his Nemesis.

"And that's not going to happen! MGM has just sold it to Sony for a billion dollars, and I think they might want to recoup some of that..."'

Later on, Craig says "Look, certainly, I played James Bond in the school playground, every [censored]ing kid I know played James Bond. And if it was the right deal, yes, I would."

The idea that guys wouldn't accept Craig is somewhat contradicted by the fact that he's on the cover of this month' GQ, was voted by that magazine's readers their favourite actor (beating Brosnan, Ewan McGregor and several others), has five pages of the mag devoted to him, three very cool photos of him wearing Margiela and smoking and a fair bit of discussion in the piece about his Bond chances, and how good he'd be. GQ is a target audience for these films. Many of its readers, I suspect, would welcome Craig as Bond. They'd agree that it's time to have someone who's a little nastier. Craig's views are quite close to Brosnan's, incidentally, voiced in his interview just a few pages earlier. But I suspect they're the same views, pretty much, as those of many other 20-50something British guys.

As for whether women would accept him, I've asked several I know and none of them even mentioned his looks. They wanted to know what he was in. 'Oh yeah,' said one. 'He was the son in ROAD TO PERDITION, right? He was very scary in that film!" So, what about him for Bond. A big grin and a nod. He's fanciable, despite looking like a train ran over him.

I think he could manage it very well. I'm not saying it would be easy, or unrisky. Yes, some of the press photos could be problematic. But he could revitalise the franchise.

Get ready for nasty [censored]ing Bond!

[Loomis]

"I can't go into details, but I just think they're in a huge transition period. They need to do something, and if I was being honest, I'd love to play him, but I'm just not sure it's possible. The problem is, it's always looking back. It has to be because it was brilliant when it started, and it slowly got worse and worse. I think Pierce Brosnan did a fantastic job when he came in, but that was ten years ago. And the world is a much more cynical place now. And spies are [censored]ing nasty c***s, and I feel that's the way they have to go. And I don't know how you do that. I don't know how you make it so you fear for that man's life... Because why worry? It's James Bond! He's Superman, for 's sake!"

Thanks for those quotations, spy. Don't think it's looking good on the Craig front - or, to put it another way, I don't see how those remarks would help Craig's chances.

I can't go into details, but I just think they're in a huge transition period. They need to do something, and if I was being honest, I'd love to play him, but I'm just not sure it's possible. Well, no, not when you make statements like that.

When did he say this? Very recently, I take it. Not the sort of thing a guy who's within weeks of being announced as Bond by Eon at a swanky hotel press conference would say, surely?

The problem is, it's always looking back. It has to be because it was brilliant when it started, and it slowly got worse and worse. I think Pierce Brosnan did a fantastic job when he came in, but that was ten years ago. Oh, it's a faded franchise, is it, Dan? Yeah, yeah, everyone says this about the Bond series - and it's true, but then not everyone is supposedly in the frame to be the new 007.

And the world is a much more cynical place now. And spies are [censored]ing nasty c***s, and I feel that's the way they have to go. And I don't know how you do that. I don't know how you make it so you fear for that man's life... Because why worry? It's James Bond! He's Superman, for 's sake!"

Effing and blinding in interviews? Is this the style Eon likes? Don't think so. He hasn't even landed the part, but already he's sticking his oar in on the creative challenges facing the series.

Seriously, if Craig were - as rumour has it - within a whisker of becoming Bond, he'd surely be smiling enigmatically and telling the journalist that he was "very busy" or something.

[spynovelfan]

Yes, but then you also think that Brosnan might come back. Want me to quote from his interview from a few pages before Craig's?

Which is it, Loomis?

I think Babs may well like the style. He's saying it how it is. They need a reinvention. Another DAD could kill the series. This is common sense. Do you want someone cool like Craig who speaks his mind, but still says he'd really like the part? Or a McMahon, who kind of sleazes his way through interviews creepering up to them? They both basically say 'It's James Bond!' But I think Craig's more appealing with it.

Daniel Craig might just be James Bond in Ian Fleming's CASINO ROYALE.

Get ready for the possibility, anyway. I don't think it's as unlikely as all that. Craig is hot - and wants the part. The effing and blinding is part of his appeal, and part of appearing in magazine interviews in the likes of GQ.

[David Schofield]

"I can't go into details, but I just think they're in a huge transition period. They need to do something, and if I was being honest, I'd love to play him, but I'm just not sure it's possible. The problem is, it's always looking back. It has to be because it was brilliant when it started, and it slowly got worse and worse. I think Pierce Brosnan did a fantastic job when he came in, but that was ten years ago. And the world is a much more cynical place now. And spies are [censored]ing nasty c***s, and I feel that's the way they have to go. And I don't know how you do that. I don't know how you make it so you fear for that man's life... Because why worry? It's James Bond! He's Superman, for 's sake!"

Thanks for those quotations, spy. Don't think it's looking good on the Craig front - or, to put it another way, I don't see how those remarks would help Craig's chances.

I can't go into details, but I just think they're in a huge transition period. They need to do something, and if I was being honest, I'd love to play him, but I'm just not sure it's possible. Well, no, not when you make statements like that.

When did he say this? Very recently, I take it. Not the sort of thing a guy who's within weeks of being announced as Bond by Eon at a swanky hotel press conference would say, surely?

[i]The problem is, it's always looking back. It has to be because it was brilliant when it started, and it slowly got worse and worse. I think Pierce
Effing and blinding in interviews? Is this the style Eon likes? Don't think so. He hasn't even landed the part, but already he's sticking his oar in on the creative challenges facing the series.

Seriously, if Craig were - as rumour has it - within a whisker of becoming Bond, he'd surely be smiling enigmatically and telling the journalist that he was "very busy" or something.

Not sure, Loom. I think IF EON are going with Craig, they get him warts and all: if they wanted media-friendly they'd have gone McMahon.

If they're testing Craig, they know his attitude in advance. If they want Criag to "re-invent" Bond, this kind of attitue in interviews would probably help get the message that we're done with Pierce Bland-man.

[Loomis]

Do you want someone cool like Craig who speaks his mind, but still says he'd really like the part? Or a McMahon, who kind of sleazes his way through interviews creepering up to them?

Well, Craig, obviously. And I'd prefer him to Brosnan, too. Indeed, I'd prefer Craig to just about everyone apart from Owen. But I still don't think it's likely that Craig will be Bond.

Get ready for the possibility, anyway. I don't think it's as unlikely as all that. Craig is hot - and wants the part. The effing and blinding is part of his appeal, and part of appearing in magazine interviews in the likes of GQ.

I hope you're right - with decent writing, etc., and Craig really given the opportunity to shine (as Brosnan wasn't), the next few Bond films could be really terrific. But I just don't get the sense that The Powers That Be are courageous enough to go in that direction.

[SecretAgentFan]

"Another DAD could kill the series. This is common sense."

Really? Even if I don

[Loomis]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' date='20 September 2005 - 11:18']"Another DAD could kill the series. This is common sense."

Really? Even if I don

[spynovelfan]

I think you're being too narrow in your thinking, SAF and Loomis. The fact is that, ugly or not, agents or not, Daniel Craig is GQ's actor of the year. I believe he was last year, too. He speaks at some length about the publicity surrounding Bond, and he speaks, yes, about some of the problems with the character. He's fairly upfront about it, I'd say. If you want to believe it's all PR hype, fine, but I've read the Brosnan interview and the Craig interview and the other interviews, and I've done a few of those sorts of interview myself. It is not quite as regimented as all that. Sure, Brosnan's playing games. So's Craig. They're both smart men, and actually say very similar things about Bond and acting in general. Both interviews, incidentally, point to the problem of Bond's typecasting. So I think you're being a bit narrow. And I think if you ask most people, fans or non-fans, whether they liked the last Bond film, they'd say 'The first part, yes. Then it got a bit silly and crap.' I've heard this from a lot of people in the last couple of years. I suspect Babs has, too. Sure, it made money - it was a knock-on from the previous film. If they do it again, though... I can't be bothered to argue about this particular point - disagree if you like, but I feel it's pretty self-evident to anyone watching the Bond series that this is a turning point, and it has to be for the series to survive.

I just had lunch with my wife, and showed her the GQ shoot with Craig. She had precisely the same reaction as the other women I showed it to. First, she said he looked just like Boris Becker. Then she asked what she'd seen him in. When I said he might be the next Bond, she didn't react. 'Some people think he might not be good-looking enough for it,' I said. She just raised an eyebrow, Moore-style. 'He doesn't have to be good-looking!' she said. 'He just has to be tough.' Then she remembered ROAD TO PERDITION, and said Yeah, he looked like he'd be a cool choice.

I know it sounds weird. But I think more women would go to see Daniel Craig in CASINO ROYALE. My wife fancies the pants off Brosnan, but thought DAD was total rubbish, and I was in big trouble for taking her to it. Cast Craig, and you'll get my wife in the cinema. Cast Brosnan or another pretty-boy, and you probably won't, because it will give the wrong signal.

I'm hoping for Dannyboy to get it - and I honestly think there's a chance he will. He's got this far. He looks good in GQ - most people aren't scouring the net for pictures of him looking crap (yes, I know how ironic it is me saying that). They'll see him in posters and GQ shoots. And they'll see him ripping up the screen as 007.

Craig for Bond.

[SecretAgentFan]

I think you're being too narrow in your thinking, SAF and Loomis. The fact is that, ugly or not, agents or not, Daniel Craig is GQ's actor of the year. I believe he was last year, too. He speaks at some length about the publicity surrounding Bond, and he speaks, yes, about some of the problems with the character. He's fairly upfront about it, I'd say. If you want to believe it's all PR hype, fine, but I've read the Brosnan interview and the Craig interview and the other interviews, and I've done a few of those sorts of interview myself. It is not quite as regimented as all that. Sure, Brosnan's playing games. So's Craig. They're both smart men, and actually say very similar things about Bond and acting in general. Both interviews, incidentally, point to the problem of Bond's typecasting. So I think you're being a bit narrow. And I think if you ask most people, fans or non-fans, whether they liked the last Bond film, they'd say 'The first part, yes. Then it got a bit silly and crap.' I've heard this from a lot of people in the last couple of years. I suspect Babs has, too. Sure, it made money - it was a knock-on from the previous film. If they do it again, though... I can't be bothered to argue about this particular point - disagree if you like, but I feel it's pretty self-evident to anyone watching the Bond series that this is a turning point, and it has to be for the series to survive.

I just had lunch with my wife, and showed her the GQ shoot with Craig. She had precisely the same reaction as the other women I showed it to. First, she said he looked just like Boris Becker. Then she asked what she'd seen him in. When I said he might be the next Bond, she didn't react. 'Some people think he might not be good-looking enough for it,' I said. She just raised an eyebrow, Moore-style. 'He doesn't have to be good-looking!' she said. 'He just has to be tough.' Then she remembered ROAD TO PERDITION, and said Yeah, he looked like he'd be a cool choice.

I know it sounds weird. But I think more women would go to see Daniel Craig in CASINO ROYALE. My wife fancies the pants off Brosnan, but thought DAD was total rubbish, and I was in big trouble for taking her to it. Cast Craig, and you'll get my wife in the cinema. Cast Brosnan or another pretty-boy, and you probably won't, because it will give the wrong signal.

I'm hoping for Dannyboy to get it - and I honestly think there's a chance he will. He's got this far. He looks good in GQ - most people aren't scouring the net for pictures of him looking crap (yes, I know how ironic it is me saying that). They'll see him in posters and GQ shoots. And they'll see him ripping up the screen as 007.

Craig for Bond.

Fair enough. Yet this argument is misleading. My wife saw the pictures and said: This is the replacement for Pierce Brosnan? Sure, Craig is not ugly. But he is no James Bond. - So, even if we all ask our wives we won

[Loomis]

I don't think I'm being all that narrow. I've spoken up for what I believe to be Craig's good qualities (amazing screen presence, McQueen-style coolness, etc.), and have said that I'd personally like to see him as Bond (second choice after Owen, in fact). So it's not as though I've simply been saying "Pah! Not nearly as handsome as Brosnan and the others - next!", and refusing to consider what unique and wonderful things Craig might bring to the table as 007.

All I've been doing is querying whether Craig is good-looking enough to be a mass appeal Bond just like, well, all the other Bonds. And it's not such an outrageous query, is it? As a woman in her 20s (whose top choice, BTW, is Owen) said to me this afternoon: "Craig would be a better Bond villain than Bond - don't find him attractive at all." Now, there's no right and wrong here, of course. But it seems that some members of the "target audience" would find Craig sufficiently good-looking/sexy, and others wouldn't. Same as with all the previous Bonds, of course, but I don't think any Bond ever polarised viewers as much as Craig would appear likely to do.

[Captain Indigo]

Am I the only one who thinks Daniel Craig isn't ugly in the slightest?

[Evil Doctor Cheese Returns]

Am I the only one who thinks Daniel Craig isn't ugly in the slightest?

Thank God!!!

I think he's gorgeous... seriously if he came up to me in a bar and chatted me up I;d go all gooey and then he'd probably steal my wallet.

But I;m guessing me and Daniel Craig don't hang around the same bars.

Gary x

[Captain Indigo]

when I read in the sun that Craig was Bond, I went around
telling everyone he was Bond and really looking forward to seeing him as Bond at the cinema, but now it's an uncertainty, all I can do is
cross my fingers.

[SecretAgentFan]

Does anybody know when Craig

[wolflanders]

I would have liked Pierce to play again this time James Bond.
Daniel Craig is a good choice, if we consider in the short list Julian Mac Mahon, an actor familiar to tv audience (charmed, profiler, nip tuck) and not at all a possible good james bond.
Hugh Grant, Simon Dutton (the saint in tv version 1989), George Clooney could have been good choices, but for the first time in Bond history, I must admit it was really difficult to give a name.
In the 1970's, when Roger wanted to leave the role, too many actors could have been possible good bond, the best one being Ian Ogilvy (too old now!).
John Gavin would also have been a good choice in "diamonds are forever".
Even in the 1980's, there was a lot of good actors ready for the part: pierce brosnan, sam neil
Also, for the first time since I go to see each movie in theater (in 1973 - live and let die), I would have difficulties to go to see the new bond movie if Mr Mac Mahon has been retained.

[Forever007]

I like Daniel Craig a lot and truly enjoyed his recent films, especially Layer Cake. Is it me or when I watch him it seems in some scenes he's very much James Bond, but in others he's a craggy looking thug. It's really a shame because is is quite fun to watch on screen and has mega screen presence that the Bond role hasn't had since the Connery days. If Craig was only a little better looking I think he would have been widely accepted purely on his acting credentials. If they want a rougher and tougher Bond then Clive Owen would be a much "safer" choice, particularly in the looks department.

To me there have been actors that were defintely Bondian this time around, Clive Owen, Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale. Those guys were the top tier guys guaranteed success with their growing profiles. Since they are all locked up in other projects playing Bond seems rather unlikely. If they bring Brosnan back and then open up the role in Bond 22 who knows what will happen then. Maybe Owen, Jackman or Bale's career may not be as promising as they once thought and they may consider doing Bond. EON went after Dalton numerous time till he finally accepted so you just never know.

[zencat]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' date='22 September 2005 - 06:37']Does anybody know when Craig

[Stax]

Bale is Batman now but in ten years, with Batman behind him, Bale could still be young enough to maybe play Bond. He could have the best of both then.

[Genrewriter]

I don't think he's "Elephant Man ugly" but he's also not "James Bond handsome".

[Qwerty]

when I read in the sun that Craig was Bond, I went around
telling everyone he was Bond and really looking forward to seeing him as Bond at the cinema, but now it's an uncertainty, all I can do is
cross my fingers.

Hopefully we'll know soon.

[Mister Asterix]

In the 1970's, when Roger wanted to leave the role, too many actors could have been possible good bond, the best one being Ian Ogilvy (too old now!).

OT: You might want to check out the James Bond books on tape that Ogilvy read some time back.

[medrecess]

When the whole world sees daniel craig as james bond the whole series will be ruined as the image of bond in their eyes is of a 6 ft tall handsome man whereas this guy looks like some russian spy.

The james bond series will never be the same again and it will be difficult if not impossible to ressurect the series after craig does all the damage. He is 37 but looks 45. He cant portray a 28 year old. Only EON sees this guy as a james bond.

[Eye Of The Tiger]

When the whole world sees daniel craig as james bond the whole series will be ruined as the image of bond in their eyes is of a 6 ft tall handsome man whereas this guy looks like some russian spy.

The james bond series will never be the same again and it will be difficult if not impossible to ressurect the series after craig does all the damage. He is 37 but looks 45. He cant portray a 28 year old. Only EON sees this guy as a james bond.

If Daniel Craig becomes James Bond I would have no-doubt at all that you would be right!

Fortunately I do not believe that it will be Daniel Craig!

Craig or Cavill would kill the franchise!

[SecretAgentFan]

Nobody can kill this franchise except EON. And before you now say, EON kills the franchise with casting Craig, Cavill or Visjnic - please, cool down. If Craig is cast and doesn

[tbp82]

There is no doubt Bond will survive because the simple fact is Craig would not be as bad as people here are saying. They are saying things like kill the franchise and crap but Daniel Craig is on the cover of GQ. He is supposed to be a suave/good looking guy or he wouldn't be on that magazine. Having time in the gym and having his hair cut like Bond and darkening it plus having the Bond cloths and that will make him look that much better kill the franchise no? Revive the franchis maybe.

[Stax]

Bond fans will probably be proven dead wrong about Craig just as Bat-fans were about Michael Keaton and X-fans about Hugh Jackman. Lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over nothing. Have more faith in the durability of your favorite franchise, will ya? Craig won't kill it.

[zencat]

I agree. While it may not be in quite the same league, remember the incredible negative fan reaction when IFP announced the Young Bond series of books. But for those of us who have actually read the books, turns out they're pretty darn good. And despite fan predictions that it would be a bomb, IFP has found great success with the series.

In others words, sometimes the "powers that be" actually know what they're doing. Or, at least, they've seen screen-tests (or, in the case of Young Bond, a manuscript) that have lead them to their conclusions. Far too many fans are reactionary--deciding if someone would be a good or bad Bond based on photos they find on the web. Ridiculous.