165 replies to this topic

[Seannery]

It will be hilarious if anyone from the Final Four (or Three) ends up going through another round of screen tests along with Craig and whomever else passes through this next round...

I would strongly assume that the final three is gone--otherwise one of them would have won the role by impressing enough so that the search would be over and no new screen tests would be needed.

[luciusgore]

It will be hilarious if anyone from the Final Four (or Three) ends up going through another round of screen tests along with Craig and whomever else passes through this next round...

I would strongly assume that the final three is gone--otherwise one of them would have won the role by impressing enough so that the search would be over and no new screen tests would be needed.

Or Sony and Eon both don't have their act together. Remember, this is the Sony that brought us "Stealth," not the Sony that brought us "Spiderman." They don't know what they are doing. If they did, they would write Clive Owen a big fat check or Pierce Brosnan an even fatter one.

[tdalton]

It will be hilarious if anyone from the Final Four (or Three) ends up going through another round of screen tests along with Craig and whomever else passes through this next round...

I would strongly assume that the final three is gone--otherwise one of them would have won the role by impressing enough so that the search would be over and no new screen tests would be needed.

Or Sony and Eon both don't have their act together. Remember, this is the Sony that brought us "Stealth," not the Sony that brought us "Spiderman." They don't know what they are doing. If they did, they would write Clive Owen a big fat check or Pierce Brosnan an even fatter one.

According to one of the articles in the past week, it was offered to Clive, and he turned them down. If Clive doesn't want to be Bond, then I seriously doubt that any amount of money that Sony could realistically offer him would change his mind on playing the part.

[luciusgore]

It will be hilarious if anyone from the Final Four (or Three) ends up going through another round of screen tests along with Craig and whomever else passes through this next round...

I would strongly assume that the final three is gone--otherwise one of them would have won the role by impressing enough so that the search would be over and no new screen tests would be needed.

Or Sony and Eon both don't have their act together. Remember, this is the Sony that brought us "Stealth," not the Sony that brought us "Spiderman." They don't know what they are doing. If they did, they would write Clive Owen a big fat check or Pierce Brosnan an even fatter one.

According to one of the articles in the past week, it was offered to Clive, and he turned them down. If Clive doesn't want to be Bond, then I seriously doubt that any amount of money that Sony could realistically offer him would change his mind on playing the part.

It's all money. If they write him a check for $20 million, he's gonna do it. They should give up and accept they have to pay to play.

[zencat]

I'm not sure I believe the whole "it was offered it to Owen" thing.

[Pal]

It's not necessarily true that these screen tests are all totally different actors. I'm sure that if Craig is there, then possible O'Lachlan or Cavill could be there as well. Here's to hoping Gerry Butler lands the role!

[Seannery]

I'm not sure I believe the whole "it was offered it to Owen" thing.

Yeah that's not a sure fact IMO.

[Seannery]

It's not necessarily true that these screen tests are all totally different actors. I'm sure that if Craig is there, then possible O'Lachlan or Cavill could be there as well. Here's to hoping Gerry Butler lands the role!

I don't know I wouldn't think so--they already had full blown filmed screen tests. No need for further ones. Very likely these are all different actors.

[Pussfeller]

I want a strong actor as much as anyone else, but I also want someone who looks the part. In other words, a tall, darkly handsome man. Craig, a small, squinty, big-nosed blond man, is a massive departure, and one that would make no sense.

His fans point out how "gritty" he is. Charles Bronson was gritty. Should he therefore have been cast as Bond? I just can't imagine EON hiring an ugly man to play James Bond. And Craig, even if he is a talented, intense actor (which he may or may not be), is far from handsome in my opinion. Even in his best pictures, he looks sort of like Barney Rubble.

[zencat]

Here we go. Daniel Craig?

Attached Files

•  cr_great_pan2.jpg   64.11KB   86 downloads

[Pussfeller]

I never thought that illustration looked a thing like James Bond, but it does look (slightly) like Daniel Craig.

[tdalton]

I'm beginning to think that Craig isn't going to get the part, aside from him, reportedly, being under very serious consideration again. The series, IMO, can't handle two radical changes to the formula that his casting would bring. First of all, CR is a film about one of Bond's early missions, but is set in modern times. The second shock would be the casting of Craig himself. Honestly, I don't think that the film, or perhaps even the franchise, can survive two major shocks to its system that CR starring Daniel Craig would bring.

[Atticus17F]

I want a strong actor as much as anyone else, but I also want someone who looks the part. In other words, a tall, darkly handsome man. Craig, a small, squinty, big-nosed blond man, is a massive departure, and one that would make no sense.

Is he small? He didn't look particularly titchy in Layer Cake or Our Friends in the North.

His fans point out how "gritty" he is. Charles Bronson was gritty. Should he therefore have been cast as Bond? I just can't imagine EON hiring an ugly man to play James Bond. And Craig, even if he is a talented, intense actor (which he may or may not be), is far from handsome in my opinion.

Well, beauty's in the eye of the beholder and all that but, being honest, when it comes to choosing my favourite Bond, the actor's face doesn't even get on the list. I want to know if he's any good in a battle. Can he pull the birds and deliver a quip? Is this chap believable as a smooth, sophisticated British agent? That's about all you need from Bond. It's not important to me if the guy can get weekend work as a GQ model. And I've never, ever gone to see a Bond film on the basis that the leading man is tall, dark, handsome and ever-so-dreamy.

But if his looks are a serious concern, have a look around some of his fansites. The messageboards are brimming with girlies and they all seem to think he's a bit of a sort.


(interestingly, in a completely non-scientific poll conducted by me, nine of the twelve females in our office thought he was "gorgeous". Two wanted to know why he "always looks miserable". And one thought "he's got a face like a bashed crab".

Of the chaps, seven out of eight agreed Craig was a top bloke and would make a great James Bond.)

[tdalton]

I want a strong actor as much as anyone else, but I also want someone who looks the part. In other words, a tall, darkly handsome man. Craig, a small, squinty, big-nosed blond man, is a massive departure, and one that would make no sense.

Is he small? He didn't look particularly titchy in Layer Cake or Our Friends in the North.

His fans point out how "gritty" he is. Charles Bronson was gritty. Should he therefore have been cast as Bond? I just can't imagine EON hiring an ugly man to play James Bond. And Craig, even if he is a talented, intense actor (which he may or may not be), is far from handsome in my opinion.

Well, beauty's in the eye of the beholder and all that but, being honest, when it comes to choosing my favourite Bond, the actor's face doesn't even get on the list. I want to know if he's any good in a battle. Can he pull the birds and deliver a quip? Is this chap believable as a smooth, sophisticated British agent? That's about all you need from Bond. It's not important to me if the guy can get weekend work as a GQ model. And I've never, ever gone to see a Bond film on the basis that the leading man is tall, dark, handsome and ever-so-dreamy.

But if his looks are a serious concern, have a look around some of his fansites. The messageboards are brimming with girlies and they all seem to think he's a bit of a sort.


(interestingly, in a completely non-scientific poll conducted by me, nine of the twelve females in our office thought he was "gorgeous". Two wanted to know why he "always looks miserable". And one thought "he's got a face like a bashed crab".

Of the chaps, seven out of eight agreed Craig was a top bloke and would make a great James Bond.)

You bring up some great points here. While I do want Craig to get the role, I've once again resigned myself to the fact that he will almost certainly not get it.

[Loeffelholz]

This is the way it goes. Craig is now back 'in' as a contender, and the former 'three' are out. I think this means that next week, Purefoy or one of the former 'three' will be back 'in' and Craig will be 'out' again.

Just a bunch of noise until Eon makes an announcement.

[Pussfeller]

Loeffelholz is right. We're just recycling the same old rumours, treading water until we can get our hands on something authoritative. A part of me wants to stop reading the forums and just wait, for a few months or more, until EON makes an official statement. I don't want to get myself dead-set on some "finalist", thinking he's a sure thing, and then being blindsided when EON casts a completely different actor. It's best to keep a very open mind, and remember that we can't do anything to alter the final decision. So we might as well just try to enjoy things.

[rafterman]

Will they just pick somebody already. I'll do it.

[Loeffelholz]

I've only been posting on these boards for a month or two, and the various casting rumours in this brief span of time have just made me dizzy. Some weeks I was convinced that the Croat was going to get it, then I read a post about a screen test which refocused my hopes on Cavill, and before that O'Lachlan said that he would hear in 20 days (which was, by my reckoning, about 25 days ago). Now it's all about Craig again.

yawn.

I check these boards every day, and try to participate, but it's like trying to eat an air sandwich---not very filling without some meat in it.

Come on, Eon!

Edited by Loeffelholz, 06 September 2005 - 03:54 AM.

[Pussfeller]

Actually, I find it kind of encouraging (as well as annoying) that EON is taking so damn long to make, or at least to reveal, their choice. One hopes that they're spending this time seeking out the best possible candidate, double-checking people, searching for absolute unknowns, not taking any chances, doing everything systematically, etc. It's obnoxious that we have to wait so long (considering that Brosnan was announced in August 1994, with filming on GE beginning in January of 1995), but I hope it'll all turn out for the best.

I can wait as long as they can procrastinate. Here's hoping that we get a decision this month.

[thespecialist]

I just finished reading this thread and the recently closed thread on Daniel Craig speculation and I thought I might point out that it seems most of the most vehement opposition to Craig seems to be from Americans. Not exclusively of course, but it's strange. Missouri, New York, Michigan etc. And from reports it seems that Michael Wilson - an American - is the leading Bond figure opposed to the casting of Craig.

It seems to me that there is a pretty definite aesthetic (particularly on one side of the Atlantic) - tall, dark, square jaw - that some fans are slaves to. To the point it might seem that some fans would rather we had a tall, dark, lughead model in the role than a competent actor. You can put any Gucci model in a suit and pass him off as James Bond...but it doesn't work that way if you want a good movie.

Please remember that they are casting 007, not a floozy bit part Bond girl in a bikini. It isn't all about looks. And 'handsome' doesn't mean he has to resemble the Malboro man in a tuxedo. That was the mistake made when casting Lazenby. This next actor has to single handedly carry a movie and show a bit of skill in doing so.

[hrabb04]

So, basically, judging by your own standards, that rules out Craig.

[Loeffelholz]

Brando was a very competent actor. But I wouldn't have cast him as James Bond.

Same with Peter Lorre, Lee Marvin, Walter Matthau, John Wayne, et cetera. We ought not to pretend that looks count for nothing.

[SecretAgentFan]

I think Craig is a great actor with more charisma than all the other candidates (Owen never was a candidate and doesn

[Martin Mystery]

I'm not sure I believe the whole "it was offered it to Owen" thing.

Why not? It sounds very plausible to me.
If you believe the rest of the article, then why not this bit?

MM

[Pussfeller]

Looks do matter. Cinema is all about appearances. I don't think it's shallow to say that Bond should at least be reasonably handsome, and that he ought to have certain characteristics, i.e. a slim, lean build, dark hair, cruel good looks, etc. These are features that all the Bond actors have possessed. This doesn't mean the role should be cast purely based on appearance. No one here is suggesting that they should give it to a male model, or an untalented actor. But appearance should (and DOES) have a role in the decision, and it's a perfectly reasonable criterion for disqualifying a candidate.

And incidentally, why is it necessary to characterize Craig's detractors as American? Are Americans somehow less "with it" when it comes to Bond? I guess the decision should be left up to British guys like Cubby Broccoli, huh?

[SecretAgentFan]

"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."

Very good point! I also believe that the new screentests will call in the best of all screentests. And Craig definitely had to be in there. I know I

[spynovelfan]

...I always liked Craig and with the Haggis-polished screenplay going back to a realistic spy thriller in the FRWL mold, I think Craig is the man to choose. And by the way, he would want to do it. Big factor.

What makes you so sure he'd want to do it?

[Loomis]

First of all, it shows that they're looking to possibly go away from the whole "rookie Bond" aspect.

The CBn article says it would still be Bond's first mission.

If that's the case (and I checked the article again, and it is), then Daniel Craig won't be cast as Bond. I doubt that he would be able to portray Bond on an early mission, and I think that showing his Bond as a rookie who doesn't quite know what he's doing would be an absolute waste of Craig's talent.

An early mission Bond would be in the 31-35 age range and Craig can play that.

Can he? I believe he's 37 or thereabouts, but he looks about 15 years older. On a good day. That's another problem with Craig.

The pros and cons of Craig:

PROS

Superb actor, easily as skilled as Dalton if not more so. If he doesn't play Bond (and he won't), expect him to get at least one Oscar nomination in the future (a la Owen).

Considered a very "cool" actor - again, a la Owen. A lot of "buzz" around him. If The Powers That Be announce him as Bond in December or January, that'll coincide with the opening of Spielberg's MUNICH, in which he co-stars - and it's a film that's bound to make a tremendous splash. Craig will be an even hotter and more fashionable name by the end of this year (think Owen circa CLOSER).

Amazing screen presence - the McQueen factor, etc. Able to "carry" a film and hold the attention of an easily-bored viewer (me) throughout even a pretty poor piece of work (LAYER CAKE).

CONS

However you slice it, simply not handsome enough for Bond.

Looks much older than he is.

Has a very successful and doubtless lucrative career already, with plenty of exciting choices ahead. Why would he want to be tied to Bond, a role that may be more trouble than it's worth? (I mean, didn't Julian McMahon's "people" advise him against auditioning for 007? I think I read that in some thread or another here on CBn. If McMahon is being dissuaded from doing Bond, what hope is there of Craig's representatives encouraging him to try for the role?)

Craig would be an excellent choice for "Fleming's Bond", a rough, tough, dark and Daltonite if-he-hit-you-you'd-stay-down merchant.... but even so, possibly too extreme even for Fleming-thumping purists who hanker after the days of Benzedrine and love LICENCE TO KILL. (I mean, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he was approached for the role of Renard in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.)

I'll be absolutely staggered if he ends up as the star of CASINO ROYALE.

[Loomis]

Athena and I have Layer Cake on our Netfix queue, but there's now a wait. He's suddenly very popular.

Right, that clinches it - everyone "in the know" in L.A. is racing to check out the new Bond!

It isn't much of a film (thanks largely to an uninteresting story), but it'll be a worthwhile rental for Athena and yourself. I'd be interested to read your views on Vaughn as a director. I think he has a pretty decent "visual sensibility", and shows great flair with suspense and action - not bad work for a debut.

[spynovelfan]

Could he be, though, the Owen-they-can-get candidate? I wonder if they don't know they overstepped the mark a little with the final third of DIE ANOTHER DAY, and want to take on the gritty spy thrillers. Hasn't just been Bourne - THE RECRUIT, SPY GAME, even TV shows like SPOOKS, 24 and ALIAS have shown that there's a market for this, and that perhaps they'd better be in that market.

I'd also be surprised if he was picked - but I do think it's possible. If they were seriously looking at a Croatian actor, I think all bets are off, really. Look at some of the candidates who have confirmed they've been tested. Dominic West, for instance. A lot pointing to Dougray Scott. These guys are in the mould of Craig. Others aren't, of course (Cavill, Rikki Lee Travolta, etc), but I do think it's possible. The main question has to be Does he really want to do it? I'm not so sure he does, but perhaps he can find a way to Higson it. By which I mean, if it's a radical change of direction and succeeds critically and commercially, he could come out of it untouched by typecasting. Charles Higson looked an unlikely candidate to commit to writing young Bond novels - but they're set in the 30s, they've done very well, and after he's finished the run he will be a more highly thought of writer, who did those damned good young Bond thrillers. He'll be able to move on, probably to more successful adult novels than his previous ones, and be, I think, totally unscathed by Bond, and in fact have his standing improved. Didn't happen with Gardner, that. So I think it's *possible* for it to work to someone like Craig's advantage - whether or not he can see that, and EON can be brave enough to make sure it happens, is another thing entirely.