165 replies to this topic

[dinovelvet]

If you look at the article 'Casino in crisis?' at MKKBB, it ends with the following :

"A new round of screentesting is now due to take place in September, and the net might be cast wider once more. Campbell appears to be in favour of a complete unknown in the role."

Thus we can conclude that the 'final four' were a bunch of duds. Well OK we know Ewan Stewart was never a contender, but Alex O'Lachlan said a decision would be made by the end of August. Its September 5th and nothing's happened. Visjnic, Cavill, and O'Lachlan apparently didn't make the grade then, and some new nobodies are being brought in.

Somewhere in Malibu, an Irishman is laughing.

___
Now on the main page.

More Screentests Planned For New 007
CBn confirms Daniel Craig back in mix

[1q2w3e4r]

Somewhere in Malibu, an Irishman is laughing.

I agree. If the four candidates were the best they could come up with CR is in trouble. I think a lot of fans were trying to justify to themselves why x or y would be a good Bond.

It's looking more and more like they should have just paid Brosnan his fee. Otherwise they may bottle it if some of those casting rumors were true.

[pieffra]

I feel a little bit worried about a few things.

The times article hints a new delay for CR.

So the troubles could be greater than they actually seem.

No Bond, no Moneypenny, no script, and 12 weeks to go.

I starting feel disappointed

[hrabb04]

Judging by the lack of sense of the producers, I can see Barbara B trying to get her dentist or plumber to play Bond.

[[dark]]

I feel a little bit worried about a few things.

The times article hints a new delay for CR.

So the troubles could be greater than they actually seem.

No Bond, no Moneypenny, no script, and 12 weeks to go.

I starting feel disappointed

I wouldn't take that article as gospel, pieffra. As has been said, we know there's a script (to be polished by Paul Haggis). And the rumours of Connery being asked to direct, which the article mentions, were absolute garbage.

As for the lack of Bond, well...

[fatima]

Judging by the lack of sense of the producers, I can see Barbara B trying to get her dentist or plumber to play Bond.

They would probably turn it down because it would damage their careers

[hrabb04]

LOL, probably. These guys are in a heap of trouble. You would think actors would be jumping over each other to want to play Bond. Judging by the names thrown out on this site, there's quite a few people who could reasonably do it. So, why weren't they asked? Really, what is the problem here? Are the producers burned out? If they don't know what to do with Bond, then they need to step aside. Personally, I feel their departure is looooooong overdue. They are the Berman and Braga of James Bond.

[Seannery]

I feel a little bit worried about a few things.

The times article hints a new delay for CR.

So the troubles could be greater than they actually seem.

No Bond, no Moneypenny, no script, and 12 weeks to go.

I starting feel disappointed

I wouldn't take that article as gospel, pieffra. As has been said, we know there's a script (to be polished by Paul Haggis). And the rumours of Connery being asked to direct, which the article mentions, were absolute garbage.

As for the lack of Bond, well...

Dark you have to differentiate between the Times articles and the MKKBB report. You are correct that the Times articles is wrong about the Connery thing and in saying there is no script BUT the MKKBB report doesn't bring up the Connery thing and corrects the Times by saying of course there is a script.

So the MKKBB article seems much more on the ball and accurate and it is the MKKBB article(which is the basis for this thread) that states we are getting more screentests in September and that the search for Bond goes on and goes wider.

Which to me is great news because it means that the "final 3 or 4" did not impress enough and therefore we are not stuck with any of them as Bond. No Goran!

[[dark]]

,5 September 2005 - 10:24]

I feel a little bit worried about a few things.

The times article hints a new delay for CR.

So the troubles could be greater than they actually seem.

No Bond, no Moneypenny, no script, and 12 weeks to go.

I starting feel disappointed

I wouldn't take that article as gospel, pieffra. As has been said, we know there's a script (to be polished by Paul Haggis). And the rumours of Connery being asked to direct, which the article mentions, were absolute garbage.

As for the lack of Bond, well...

Dark you have to differentiate between the Times articles and the MKKBB report. You are correct that the Times articles is wrong about the Connery thing and in saying there is no script BUT the MKKBB report doesn't bring up the Connery thing and corrects the Times by saying of course there is a script.

So the MKKBB article seems much more on the ball and accurate and it is the MKKBB article(which is the basis for this thread) that states we are getting more screentests in September and that the search for Bond goes on and goes wider.

Which to me is great news because it means that the "final 3 or 4" did not impress enough and therefore we are not stuck with any of them as Bond. No Goran!

Oh, I knew that, and completely agree with you. But MKKBB does not concede there may be a delay.

Personally, I doubt the film will be pushed back. Part of me is starting to wish it would - the apparent casting fiasco is reason enough - just so we get the right actor for Casino Royale and beyond. None of the names being tossed around as "serious contenders" impress me.

[Seannery]

,5 September 2005 - 10:24]

I feel a little bit worried about a few things.

The times article hints a new delay for CR.

So the troubles could be greater than they actually seem.

No Bond, no Moneypenny, no script, and 12 weeks to go.

I starting feel disappointed

I wouldn't take that article as gospel, pieffra. As has been said, we know there's a script (to be polished by Paul Haggis). And the rumours of Connery being asked to direct, which the article mentions, were absolute garbage.

As for the lack of Bond, well...

Dark you have to differentiate between the Times articles and the MKKBB report. You are correct that the Times articles is wrong about the Connery thing and in saying there is no script BUT the MKKBB report doesn't bring up the Connery thing and corrects the Times by saying of course there is a script.

So the MKKBB article seems much more on the ball and accurate and it is the MKKBB article(which is the basis for this thread) that states we are getting more screentests in September and that the search for Bond goes on and goes wider.

Which to me is great news because it means that the "final 3 or 4" did not impress enough and therefore we are not stuck with any of them as Bond. No Goran!

Oh, I knew that, and completely agree with you. But MKKBB does not concede there may be a delay.

Personally, I doubt the film will be pushed back. Part of me is starting to wish it would - the apparent casting fiasco is reason enough - just so we get the right actor for Casino Royale and beyond. None of the names being tossed around as "serious contenders" impress me.

Yes you are definitely correct MKKBB doesn't mention delay. I agree CR still doesn't seem likely to be pushed back. Now hopefully they will get on the ball with the casting and get some reasonable Bond candidates. Then they should be on time as long as the script polishing and retouching doesn't turn into more extensive surgery.

[Skudor]

I'm sure they'll end up finding someone. I'm not in the least bothered about a lack of Monepenny - she's only a minor character. The fact that they still havn't picked a Bond isn't as bad as it seems, at least it means they aren't just jumping on the first guy who sort of fits. I'll start panicking in January.

[pieffra]

I think they had four years to decide every thing. First, they used to do a movie every two years, then came Brosnan and for DAD two years became three years. After DAD they probably decided for CR to come out for 2005, but different troubles bring them to a 2006 exit, so they have another year to do everything, but now it seems nothing has been done. Last march Michael Wilson announced officially that CR will hit theatres on november 2006. A lot of actors were screentested but at the moment nobody can dress the part. I don't think there's nobody in the world who wouldn't take the part. We don't have a bad guy who will face 007, no moneypenny (Is it so hard to find a gracious 30 years old girl, at least all over UK?), we don't know if Cleese is still on the movie or not, no main title song and singer at all, no hench man, no femme fatale. We only have Judi Dench, The director Campbell, and what else? A new Fiat Panda and probably also a script to be polished, but as Wade said, it's over a year and half they had it, and, why they decide do polish it at 12 weeks from the start, and not a little bit earlier. I think that a good planning is the only thing to do, to have good movie, but as we can see, it doesn't seem our case. This veil of mistery, doesn't intrigue me anymore. As Tom Jones sang in TB: "He acts while other man just talk", but it's not what they seem to do.
Every day I open my PC and enter the site, I hope to find something new, but after Haggis, no news at all. No new secondary actors, nothing. And it is very disappointing.
Maybe it's part of the game the chiefs are playing to let our expectancy grow and grow, but this game it's boring me a lot.

As for the final four, none of them will make me jump of happiness.

I don't think it's a good think an unknown for the part.

I don't want a mega star for the part. But some one who could be a good 007, and most of the actor we have on the list could do it, and not necessary they are so known, but at least you can recognize them once you see them.

That's why I'm disappointed. Can anybody blame me for that?

[Seannery]

It just occurred to me that this report of new screentests for 007 in September coincides with Cbn's report of Daniel Craig being back in the Bond picture. Being that Craig's earlier dalliance with Eon/Sony was perhaps before the time of filmed screentests, it could mean Craig will be one of the actors getting a filmed screentest this time. Who else will join him?

[Mister Asterix]

It just occurred to me that this report of new screentests for 007 in September coincides with Cbn's report of Daniel Craig being back in the Bond picture.

[tdalton]

Well, hopefully Craig is going to get a screentest and I'm confident that he'll impress all four of them (Campbell, Pascal, Wilson, and Brocolli). If his performance in Layer Cake is any indication, he'll definitely impress them if he's being tested.

[Seannery]

It just occurred to me that this report of new screentests for 007 in September coincides with Cbn's report of Daniel Craig being back in the Bond picture.

I find that wink most intriguing Mr. *

[Pal]

Speaking of the Final 4, the final 4 Bond Movies are being voted on as we speak in the General James Bond Forums. Check it out and vote. But as good as it is to hear that they are screen testing, it's just as bad to hear that same news this late in the game. With all of the time Eon has had, they should have had thier Bond (Owen, Butler, Paul) already signed. But here we are.

[Seannery]

Perhaps if Craig 37 will be among those given filmed screentests this time around it would mean that this time those tested will be more mature and around his age.

[Seannery]

It just occurred to me that this report of new screentests for 007 in September coincides with Cbn's report of Daniel Craig being back in the Bond picture.

I find that wink most intriguing Mr. *

Well it looks like I called it--at CBn's home page is a report entitled, "More Screentests planned for 007". And it states that CBn confirms that Daniel Craig is indeed one of the actors being screentested for Bond! Who else I wonder?

[dinovelvet]

Jeez what is going on here?! Didn't Sony favor Daniel Craig a few months ago, but EON vetoed him? My guess is that Sony have put on the pressure, and have given EON an ultimatum along the lines of, you've got a month to find someone, or we're going with Craig. Sony need to get the ball rolling on Casino Royale, their box office took a dive this year with the expensive duds XXX2 and Stealth.

[Seannery]

Jeez what is going on here?! Didn't Sony favor Daniel Craig a few months ago, but EON vetoed him? My guess is that Sony have put on the pressure, and have given EON an ultimatum along the lines of, you've got a month to find someone, or we're going with Craig. Sony need to get the ball rolling on Casino Royale, their box office took a dive this year with the expensive duds XXX2 and Stealth.

Babs is said to like Craig also.

[zencat]

Jeez what is going on here?! Didn't Sony favor Daniel Craig a few months ago, but EON vetoed him? My guess is that Sony have put on the pressure, and have given EON an ultimatum along the lines of, you've got a month to find someone, or we're going with Craig. Sony need to get the ball rolling on Casino Royale, their box office took a dive this year with the expensive duds XXX2 and Stealth.

Babs is said to like Craig also.

Was "the studio" that apparently offered Craig the role Sony or MGM? I believe the whole Matthew Vaughn/Daniel Craig package came before the Sony buyout, therefore it was MGM. This is also evidenced by that fact that it was Sony's sudden involvement (and deep pockets) that secured Martin Campbell (and scuttled Vaughn).

The Craig thing in all very mysterious.

[Loomis]

I very much doubt that Craig will be Bond. Thanks to his looks, even those of us who'd welcome him as the new 007 would still have some trouble accepting him as the same character who's just been played by Brosnan.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for a bit of change for the series at this point, and would love to see a new Bond in CASINO ROYALE. And I'd be delighted to read that Craig had landed the gig, but even so a part of me would be thinking "Hold on, isn't there a strong possibility that this could totally sink the franchise?".

I agree with something written by spynovelfan a couple of days ago (in the thread "Daniel Craig back in the Bond picture"):

The ideal choice, of course, has always been Owen, who has what Craig has but looks more like Bond. The danger with Craig is he'll make Dalton look like Hugh Grant. But I'd welcome him nonetheless - he's been great in everything I've seen him in.

But he'd make Dalton look like Hugh Grant. And he would. So unless The Powers That Be are prepared to refashion the Bond franchise with such an extraordinary amount of "grit" and "realism" and "darkness" and "down-to-earthness" as to make the Bourne films look like Austin Powers spoofs, I'd be amazed if they chose Craig. It'd be like the contrast between Moore and Dalton times a hundred.

If TBTB are planning to take the series in an ultra-realistic direction with CR, then, fine, hire Craig, but they'd just better make sure that they're not merely kidding around with the ultra-realistic bit (y'know, the usual press conference hype like "We're going back to Fleming", "There'll be 'Bond women' in this film, not 'Bond girls'", "We'll be peeling back the layers of James Bond to explore the man within and his demons"....), otherwise it'd look like one of the most preposterous pieces of miscasting in movie history. Ask yourself: would you trust this man to carry a DIE ANOTHER DAY?

Still, even if another LICENCE TO KILL is in the pipeline, the Craig fizzog would remain a pretty tall order.

Do TPTB have enough imagination and, frankly, guts to give him the role of Bond? I doubt it. And even if they do, is it likely that he'd want it? Again, I doubt it. Like Owen, he's doing awfully well already. He doesn't need Bond. And he most definitely doesn't need 75% of people (rough guess, obviously) going on for the rest of his life about his being utterly miscast as Bond.

So.... wonder who else they're testing?

[Loomis]

Was "the studio" that apparently offered Craig the role Sony or MGM?

Sony, I think. Isn't LAYER CAKE a Sony film? The idea being to reunite the LC dream team of Craig and Vaughn for CASINO ROYALE?

[Spoon]

zencat, according to this article, it was indeed MGM.

[Martin Mystery]

Perhaps if Craig 37 will be among those given filmed screentests this time around it would mean that this time those tested will be more mature and around his age.

...but nowhere near 45 years old, Seannery

MM

[zencat]

zencat, according to this article, it was indeed MGM.

Ah, yes, good. That's what I thought. I think the Sony buyout of MGM has caused a lot of confusion over who wanted what when, etc. I don't think Sony got into the Bond 6 casting until this year. In fact, I don't think even Eon did any serious Bond casting work until this year. I know I didn't hear a single peep from reliable sources about casting until this year.

[Seannery]

I very much doubt that Craig will be Bond. Thanks to his looks, even those of us who'd welcome him as the new 007 would still have some trouble accepting him as the same character who's just been played by Brosnan.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for a bit of change for the series at this point, and would love to see a new Bond in CASINO ROYALE. And I'd be delighted to read that Craig had landed the gig, but even so a part of me would be thinking "Hold on, isn't there a strong possibility that this could totally sink the franchise?".

I agree with something written by spynovelfan a couple of days ago (in the thread "Daniel Craig back in the Bond picture"):

The ideal choice, of course, has always been Owen, who has what Craig has but looks more like Bond. The danger with Craig is he'll make Dalton look like Hugh Grant. But I'd welcome him nonetheless - he's been great in everything I've seen him in.

But he'd make Dalton look like Hugh Grant. And he would. So unless The Powers That Be are prepared to refashion the Bond franchise with such an extraordinary amount of "grit" and "realism" and "darkness" and "down-to-earthness" as to make the Bourne films look like Austin Powers spoofs, I'd be amazed if they chose Craig. It'd be like the contrast between Moore and Dalton times a hundred.

If TBTB are planning to take the series in an ultra-realistic direction with CR, then, fine, hire Craig, but they'd just better make sure that they're not merely kidding around with the ultra-realistic bit (y'know, the usual press conference hype like "We're going back to Fleming", "There'll be 'Bond women' in this film, not 'Bond girls'", "We'll be peeling back the layers of James Bond to explore the man within and his demons"....), otherwise it'd look like one of the most preposterous pieces of miscasting in movie history. Ask yourself: would you trust this man to carry a DIE ANOTHER DAY?

Still, even if another LICENCE TO KILL is in the pipeline, the Craig fizzog would remain a pretty tall order.

Do TPTB have enough imagination and, frankly, guts to give him the role of Bond? I doubt it. And even if they do, is it likely that he'd want it? Again, I doubt it. Like Owen, he's doing awfully well already. He doesn't need Bond. And he most definitely doesn't need 75% of people (rough guess, obviously) going on for the rest of his life about his being utterly miscast as Bond.

So.... wonder who else they're testing?

Loomis I agree Craig might not get 007 as he is a ballsy and offbeat choice BUT I wouldn't discount it so quickly either. I think first of all he's a better choice than Owen because he has more innate elegance and much more impressive and again "elegant" voice(the voice an important aspect of Bond). Owen has more of the conventional Bond look(though Craig has a look that is underrated) but I submit Craig wins on the other counts.

And I disagree that Craig would be ultra serious and grim--in fact I see more buoyancy in him than Dalton and Owen with the potential to do some nice dry humor ala Connery. He showed that in Lara Croft--suprising buoyancy. In essence he could be right in line with the Bondian tradition of humor, action and suspense.

And if he nailed the performance part of the role with his tough cool looks I don't think he'd have to worry about 75% complaining he's not right for the role--in fact he'd win over most.

That said it still could be a more conventional looking competitor out of the latest screentests that wins the role BUT performance-wise he has the talent and qualities to pull off Bond in the traditional sense and NOT in some ultra serious way.

[Seannery]

Perhaps if Craig 37 will be among those given filmed screentests this time around it would mean that this time those tested will be more mature and around his age.

...but nowhere near 45 years old, Seannery

MM

But MM as Cbn reports this will be an early mission Bond and since Bond was an experienced Naval Commander first he wouldn't be young at Mi6. He'd be somewhere around 33, 34, 35 which is about where Daniel Craig looks. And this gives hope to Purefoy, Paul(he actually looks younger than Purefoy), Northam and perhaps others in this range--all who can pass on film as a 34, 35 year old and look in the same range as the rough Craig. Of course Gerard Butler is right at that range. All these actors are better than the final 3 we were stuck with a short while ago.

[tdalton]

I think that this news of Daniel Craig being brought in for a screentest is encouraging. First of all, it shows that they're looking to possibly go away from the whole "rookie Bond" aspect. Also, it shows that Barbara Brocolli may be putting her foot down on the whole thing and trying to get what she wants done, since we've learned that Michael Wilson was not that impressed with Craig. Maybe they've gone through all of the potential Bonds that they can think of, and are bringing some of the better ideas in for a screentest. First, and foremost, however, is that this shows that the "final three" were nothing more than the last 3 actors to have received a screentest. Maybe EON realized that they had started to scrape the bottom of the barrell with those "final three" and have now decided to go back into territory that they've already been and try to reach some form of a consensus and pick a Bond from that group.

And the fact that CBn is reporting that Daniel Craig is "back in a big way" and back under serious consideration, maybe Michael Wilson is starting to change his mind on Craig. I'm not saying that he is, but it would have to seem possible since they're bringing him in for a screentest after learing that some of the production team weren't sold on him.