165 replies to this topic

[David Schofield]

Craig WILL NOT be Bond.

There are reason's why he should be - acting ability, presence - but these are far, far outwayed by the reason's very articulately put forward by previous posters here.

Add to that that EON are not going to take a chance with somebody possessing those shortcomings and the case is closed.

Craig WILL NOT be Bond... and anyone who thinks he has a good chance don't know their cinematic - or otherwise, I might add - Bond.

[Shrublands]

I would be staggered too!

But pleased to death.

We might even manage to get that

[Loomis]

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.

But if they're going to do that, and with Craig, it would mean by far the most radical change of direction in the history of the series. You've said it yourself: Craig would make Dalton look like Hugh Grant. Tacking on a few gritty spy thriller elements would be okay, and I'm sure they'll do that, but Craig would be simply too big and bold a step in the right direction. Bring Bond back down to earth a bit, fine, but to hire Craig would be to push the amps to 11, Spinal Tap-style. If Craig is being considered seriously, then Ewan Stewart almost starts to look like a realistic Bond contender too.

And of course that approach might work. There could be a market for a Bond film that rolls its sleeves up and shows the young pretender Bourne what "realistic" and "serious" are all about.... but I doubt that Sony and Eon will want to go quite that far. The Bond series has its own identity, established over decades, and I don't believe that its guardians would wish to change it too much.

Yes, I'd love to see a Bond with a bit of darkness and danger, a guy who doesn't look like a male model, solving problems without cartoonish gadgets, bedding women who are closer to the Franka Potente level of attractiveness than the flawless appearance of a Claudia Schiffer.... but that's Bourne, not Bond.

[spynovelfan]

Craig WILL NOT be Bond... and anyone who thinks he has a good chance don't know their cinematic - or otherwise, I might add - Bond.

I don't know. Think that's a bit of a silly thing to say, really - the kind of thing people say online, but it doesn't really mean anything. If you don't think this, you don't know anything. I think it's unlikely Craig will be cast as Bond, but possible. I don't know my cinematic or otherwise Bond then? Admit that it's moomoolike, David.

Okay, why I think I know a tiny bit about Bond:

From Craig's interviews, it seems clear he was already offered the role by MGM, but that the offer was then rescinded (revoked? But I don't know what that word means, or its history with this character, because of course, I don't know Bond. ). I think it's clear that anyone who has been offered the part in this way is, at the very least, a serious contender. Will they take the risk? They have done before, twice. Lazenby was a total unknown and *not even an actor*. As the first replacement for Sean Connery, he was about as risky as it was possible for them to be, I think. Dalton was a near-unknown for many, a well-respected theatrical actor who had no interest in fashion or the Bond circus. Nobody had him pegged as a possible Bond. They've taken risks. I think it's obvious they're open to taking risks now. Brosnan's gone, so they seem to be using the opportunity to rethink things. CASINO ROYALE. Possible early mission. Paul Haggis.

Craig COULD BE Bond. It's nothing about 'knowing Bond'. It's just a subjective view. I think he looks like 007 in the picture below, for example. Perhaps you don't. Doesn't effect how much we know about Bond. I'd wager that on a couple of aspects of Bond, at least, I know more than you. If Craig is cast, some people will say he's too ugly. Many said Brosnan was too pretty. But he'll be Bond, and he'll have that authority, and the film will not stand and fall by his looks alone. If he's cool and charismatic and suave, and the film is well written and exciting and fresh, it'll work, and the qualms you have about his looks will simply be reduced to a couple of threads on an internet forum titled things like 'Why Craig is the ugliest Bond' or whatever. Not sure it's as big an issue as all that - he's not hideous, is he?

[Loomis]

It's just a subjective view. I think he looks like 007 in the picture below, for example. Perhaps you don't.

Subjective, I know, but I don't think he looks like 007 at all in this picture. He looks like an average, regular bloke. What's more, he looks old enough to be that actress' dad (is that Cate Blanchett?).

He looks like someone who's won a competition to attend a premiere and is going round having himself photographed with celebs.

And I want him to be Bond. But I don't see it happening. Very surprised that they're even bothering to screentest him (again?). I hate to say this, but could it be that CBn's "sources" are coming out with a bit of false information to lead people off the scent of the real candidates?

[Pussfeller]

He's not hideous, and I would prefer him to an utter toad like Ewan Stewart, but I can't see anything remotely Bondian about his appearance. He looks nothing like any previous Bond, nor does he look at all like Fleming's description. No, CR wouldn't bomb if he were cast, but I still doubt EON would give him a chance. His appearance is just too different.

[spynovelfan]

Yes, that's Cate Blanchett, and yes, it's subjective: I think he looks perfectly at ease, cool, elegant and if the caption were 'New Bond actor Daniel Craig poses with Cate Blanchett at the Baftas' I wouldn't blink. The idea that Craig is the Hunchback of Notre Dame's as silly as saying that Dalton was the incarnation of Fleming's Bond - if he were that ugly, he wouldn't have the career he has now. And MGM wouldn't have offered him the part of James Bond. Unless he made that up - but it seems unlikely.

[Loomis]

Yes, that's Cate Blanchett, and yes, it's subjective: I think he looks perfectly at ease, cool, elegant and if the caption were 'New Bond actor Daniel Craig poses with Cate Blanchett at the Baftas' I wouldn't blink. The idea that Craig is the Hunchback of Notre Dame's as silly as saying that Dalton was the incarnation of Fleming's Bond - if he were that ugly, he wouldn't have the career he has now. And MGM wouldn't have offered him the part of James Bond. Unless he made that up - but it seems unlikely.

I think that Brosnan has - unfortunately - raised the bar when it comes to a Bond actor's looks. Craig could have followed Dalton or Moore (the Moore of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, OCTOPUSSY and A VIEW TO A KILL, at least - the elderly, haggard Moore) and no one would have batted an eyelid. But if they make him walk that opening gunbarrel logo after Broz, people won't just be batting their eyelids, their eyes will be tumbling out of their heads.

And I don't recall likening Craig to Quasimodo. But if you like, he might as well be when it comes to the question of his suitability for the cinematic Bond.

And yet another problem is that, while he looks okay from time to time in films, when he's in motion (and while he has that amazing presence of his, etc.), he tends to look as rough as **** in still photos. Which wouldn't be good for a Bond actor.

[David Schofield]

Craig WILL NOT be Bond... and anyone who thinks he has a good chance don't know their cinematic - or otherwise, I might add - Bond.

I don't know. Think that's a bit of a silly thing to say, really - the kind of thing people say online, but it doesn't really mean anything. If you don't think this, you don't know anything. I think it's unlikely Craig will be cast as Bond, but possible. I don't know my cinematic or otherwise Bond then? Admit that it's moomoolike, David.

Okay, why I think I know a tiny bit about Bond:

From Craig's interviews, it seems clear he was already offered the role by MGM, but that the offer was then rescinded (revoked? But I don't know what that word means, or its history with this character, because of course, I don't know Bond. ). I think it's clear that anyone who has been offered the part in this way is, at the very least, a serious contender. Will they take the risk? They have done before, twice. Lazenby was a total unknown and *not even an actor*. As the first replacement for Sean Connery, he was about as risky as it was possible for them to be, I think. Dalton was a near-unknown for many, a well-respected theatrical actor who had no interest in fashion or the Bond circus. Nobody had him pegged as a possible Bond. They've taken risks. I think it's obvious they're open to taking risks now. Brosnan's gone, so they seem to be using the opportunity to rethink things. CASINO ROYALE. Possible early mission. Paul Haggis.

Craig COULD BE Bond. It's nothing about 'knowing Bond'. It's just a subjective view. I think he looks like 007 in the picture below, for example. Perhaps you don't. Doesn't effect how much we know about Bond. I'd wager that on a couple of aspects of Bond, at least, I know more than you. If Craig is cast, some people will say he's too ugly. Many said Brosnan was too pretty. But he'll be Bond, and he'll have that authority, and the film will not stand and fall by his looks alone. If he's cool and charismatic and suave, and the film is well written and exciting and fresh, it'll work, and the qualms you have about his looks will simply be reduced to a couple of threads on an internet forum titled things like 'Why Craig is the ugliest Bond' or whatever. Not sure it's as big an issue as all that - he's not hideous, is he?

Spy, I've heard about your troubles with Moomoo...

However, I do not believe that Craig could morph into Fleming's Bond, never mind the movie version. It would be harder to crack the movie version, sure, because there are some fairly steadfast parameteres in which to work - looks, height being the obvious ones with which Craig does not comply. But I still don't see Craig cracking the Fleming version (anymore than Roger). His very acting style is far too intense - as posters here say, beyond Dalton - and while he might carry off the Fleming Bond moodiness, it must be remembered, Bond wasn't a chronic depressive. I just can't see Craig-Bond enjoying the "compensations" of the Bond lifestyle. It was a trial for Dalton (though to me it worked, but no to many) to carry of the easy sophistication: for Craig it would be beyond his range, I suspect. He is too intense, too kitchen-sink Manchester working class. Bond is not the upper class twit, of course, but he is at home in that world: he does not rebel against it. The Craig test: picture Craig in Blades, with M and Basildon before dinner and the bridge game with Drax: Fleming remarks Bond looks an outsider, sure, very tough, but he does not portray Bond as out of his depth, an RSM in the Officer's Mess - and that edgy, not-quite-suave-enough for Bond is what you'd get with Craig. And Statham. And Scott. And probably many others.

Edited by David Schofield, 06 September 2005 - 11:35 AM.

[Shrublands]

[quote name='David Schofield' date='6 September 2005 - 11:32']

[/quote]
... too kitchen-sink Manchester working class. Bond is not the upper class twit, of course, but he is at home in that world: he does not rebel against it. The Craig test: picture Craig in Blades, with M and Basildon before dinner and the bridge game with Drax: Fleming remarks Bond looks an outsider, sure, very tough, but he does not portray Bond as out of his depth, an RSM in the Officer's Mess...

[/quote]

Isn

[spynovelfan]

Spy, I've heard about your troubles with Moomoo...

Nicely done.

However, I do not believe that Craig could morph into Fleming's Bond, never mind the movie version. It would be harder to crack the movie version, sure, because there are some fairly steadfast parameteres in which to work - looks, height being the obvious ones with which Craig does not comply.

Height? He's six foot! That is Fleming's Bond - TSWLM - and it's also the movie Bond. You're not telling me that someone who's six foot is too short to play Bond, surely?

But I still don't see Craig cracking the Fleming version (anymore than Roger). His very acting style is far too intense - as posters here say, beyond Dalton - and while he might carry off the Fleming Bond moodiness, it must be remembered, Bond wasn't a chronic depressive. I just can't see Craig-Bond enjoying the "compensations" of the Bond lifestyle. It was a trial for Dalton (though to me it worked, but no to many) to carry of the easy sophistication: for Craig it would be beyond his range, I suspect.

I don't see it like that. I agree that the 'compensations' side is important, and the actor needs to pull it off. I actually tend towards the feeling that Dalton didn't get it at all, and that he was, for large chunks of his films, misinterpreting the part quite severely. I thought he got some sides of Bond down, but it is important that Bond cares about how he looks, for example. Dalton, great actor, believeable spy - didn't. I also found his Bond rather too noble - there's no Flashman in there, as there is in the books (taking bets on who's going to screw Goodnight first with other double-0s in OHMSS, for instance). I think Craig often acts very intense, but I think he also appreciates a sharp suit. In an interview earlier this year about all this, he said he loves "a martini straight up with an olive". Not a huge deal, obviously, but I think you're misrepresenting him as being Dalton cubed. He's happy to do the photo shoots for GQ, Esquire and Arena - they've been happy to do them with him. He'd be more intense than Dalton, I think - but he'd also be cool. Dalton was occasionally cool. A lot of the time he was a bit Mills and [censored]ing Boon. He was a woman's idea of Bond. He was angry, fiery, noble, honourable, got personal when it really mattered. He was rarely if ever selfish, needlessly arrogant, corrupt, misogynistic, downright cool. Craig would be, in my view.

He is too intense, too kitchen-sink Manchester working class.

Mr Connery, Sean, cf.

Bond is not the upper class twit, of course, but he is at home in that world: he does not rebel against it. The Craig test: picture Craig in Blades, with M and Basildon before dinner and the bridge game with Drax: Fleming remarks Bond looks an outsider, sure, very tough, but he does not portray Bond as out of his dept, an RSM in the Officer's Mess - and that edgy, not-quite-suave-enough for Bond is what you'd get with Craig. And Statham. And Scott. And probably many others.

I think he's far suaver than Scott. I think Statham looks pretty sharp - he's not got any hair and a bit of a thug, but I do think it could be done.

But I do take some of your points. That's why it should be Hugh Dancy. How can I argue for Dancy and Craig? Perhaps at this stage, I'd just be happy for it not to be the likes of Visjnic or McMahon or Purefoy. I'd like to be surprised, and would like to see a risk. You thought Dancy didn't look world weary enough for Bond. But Craig is too world weary to ever be cast. Your ideal unknown candidate in that thread was the bloke from SUNSET BEACH! I hope Eon have their head screwed on enough not to pick a shop dummy version of Brosnan.

Come on. Get on the Craig bandwagon, David. It's the only show in town*.

*That and the Dancy bandwagon, obviously.

[David Schofield]

... too kitchen-sink Manchester working class. Bond is not the upper class twit, of course, but he is at home in that world: he does not rebel against it. The Craig test: picture Craig in Blades, with M and Basildon before dinner and the bridge game with Drax: Fleming remarks Bond looks an outsider, sure, very tough, but he does not portray Bond as out of his depth, an RSM in the Officer's Mess...

Isn

[David Schofield]

Spy, I've heard about your troubles with Moomoo...

Nicely done.

However, I do not believe that Craig could morph into Fleming's Bond, never mind the movie version. It would be harder to crack the movie version, sure, because there are some fairly steadfast parameteres in which to work - looks, height being the obvious ones with which Craig does not comply.

Height? He's six foot! That is Fleming's Bond - TSWLM - and it's also the movie Bond. You're not telling me that someone who's six foot is too short to play Bond, surely?

But I still don't see Craig cracking the Fleming version (anymore than Roger). His very acting style is far too intense - as posters here say, beyond Dalton - and while he might carry off the Fleming Bond moodiness, it must be remembered, Bond wasn't a chronic depressive. I just can't see Craig-Bond enjoying the "compensations" of the Bond lifestyle. It was a trial for Dalton (though to me it worked, but no to many) to carry of the easy sophistication: for Craig it would be beyond his range, I suspect.

I don't see it like that. I agree that the 'compensations' side is important, and the actor needs to pull it off. I actually tend towards the feeling that Dalton didn't get it at all, and that he was, for large chunks of his films, misinterpreting the part quite severely. I thought he got some sides of Bond down, but it is important that Bond cares about how he looks, for example. Dalton, great actor, believeable spy - didn't. I also found his Bond rather too noble - there's no Flashman in there, as there is in the books (taking bets on who's going to screw Goodnight first with other double-0s in OHMSS, for instance). I think Craig often acts very intense, but I think he also appreciates a sharp suit. In an interview earlier this year about all this, he said he loves "a martini straight up with an olive". Not a huge deal, obviously, but I think you're misrepresenting him as being Dalton cubed. He's happy to do the photo shoots for GQ, Esquire and Arena - they've been happy to do them with him. He'd be more intense than Dalton, I think - but he'd also be cool. Dalton was occasionally cool. A lot of the time he was a bit Mills and [censored]ing Boon. He was a woman's idea of Bond. He was angry, fiery, noble, honourable, got personal when it really mattered. He was rarely if ever selfish, needlessly arrogant, corrupt, misogynistic, downright cool. Craig would be, in my view.

He is too intense, too kitchen-sink Manchester working class.

Mr Connery, Sean, cf.

Bond is not the upper class twit, of course, but he is at home in that world: he does not rebel against it. The Craig test: picture Craig in Blades, with M and Basildon before dinner and the bridge game with Drax: Fleming remarks Bond looks an outsider, sure, very tough, but he does not portray Bond as out of his dept, an RSM in the Officer's Mess - and that edgy, not-quite-suave-enough for Bond is what you'd get with Craig. And Statham. And Scott. And probably many others.

I think he's far suaver than Scott. I think Statham looks pretty sharp - he's not got any hair and a bit of a thug, but I do think it could be done.

But I do take some of your points. That's why it should be Hugh Dancy. How can I argue for Dancy and Craig? Perhaps at this stage, I'd just be happy for it not to be the likes of Visjnic or McMahon or Purefoy. I'd like to be surprised, and would like to see a risk. You thought Dancy didn't look world weary enough for Bond. But Craig is too world weary to ever be cast. Your ideal unknown candidate in that thread was the bloke from SUNSET BEACH! I hope Eon have their head screwed on enough not to pick a shop dummy version of Brosnan.

Come on. Get on the Craig bandwagon, David. It's the only show in town*.

*That and the Dancy bandwagon, obviously.

Spy, I would LOVE to get on the Craig bandwagon. I think its the shot in the arm the series needs (though, as most of us say, not one EON would go for). But it sill doesn't make hime James Bond, sorry... (as in Roger wasn't really James Bond, was he?).

PS: Also, you know all these photo shoots Craig does, can he next time find a suit that fits!?. And I doubt he 6 foot, either (though that's not a problem, of course, in the wounderful world of movies).

[Loomis]

(Dalton) was rarely if ever selfish, needlessly arrogant, corrupt, misogynistic, downright cool. Craig would be, in my view.

So when was the cinematic Bond last selfish, needlessly arrogant, corrupt, misogynistic and downright cool? I think you'd have to go back to FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

Craig could work brilliantly as 007, but ONLY if they're seriously intending to return to a vision of the character that totally disappeared from screens round about 1964, and to throw on extra "grittiness" and "realism" with a trowel. It would have to be the movie equivalent of Jim's fiction.

So, yes, Craig could be a fine choice, but it would all depend on a willingness to change the series almost beyond recognition in order to accommodate him.... and, of course, on the panache to carry out such a major shift in content and tone properly.

[spynovelfan]

How do you figure Connery looked like Bond? He only looks like Bond *now*. You've seen Fleming's illustration of Bond, haven't you? Looks nothing like Connery! Fleming wanted David Niven or Christopher Lee for the role.

Craig would need scrubbing up, no doubt. But they could do it quite easily:

http://www.bluematia.com/ES1.jpg
http://www.bluematia...A_Telegraph.jpg



If you can't see that this guy's a genune contender, you know nothing about Bond.

[Shrublands]

[quote name='David Schofield' date='6 September 2005 - 11:55']
[quote name='Shrublands' date='6 September 2005 - 11:45']
[quote name='David Schofield' date='6 September 2005 - 11:32']

[/quote]
... too kitchen-sink Manchester working class. Bond is not the upper class twit, of course, but he is at home in that world: he does not rebel against it. The Craig test: picture Craig in Blades, with M and Basildon before dinner and the bridge game with Drax: Fleming remarks Bond looks an outsider, sure, very tough, but he does not portray Bond as out of his depth, an RSM in the Officer's Mess...

[/quote]

Isn

[David Schofield]

How do you figure Connery looked like Bond? He only looks like Bond *now*. You've seen Fleming's illustration of Bond, haven't you? Looks nothing like Connery! Fleming wanted David Niven or Christopher Lee for the role.

Craig would need scrubbing up, no doubt. But they could do it quite easily:

http://www.bluematia.com/ES1.jpg
http://www.bluematia...A_Telegraph.jpg



If you can't see that this guy's a genune contender, you know nothing about Bond.

I always assumed Fleming was kidding... I mean, he says he avoided names like Perigrin Carruthersa and then draws Bond as a balding, chinless upper-class twit. He descibes Bond as dark and un-English and then puts forward the blond and every English David Noven! Surely, Fleming was either A) taking the mickey out of the movie business v its ability to adapt his novels or cheesed off at Connery.

If you look at Connery at the card table in Dr No and read Fleming's desciption it fits, no?

Edited by David Schofield, 06 September 2005 - 12:18 PM.

[spynovelfan]

(Dalton) was rarely if ever selfish, needlessly arrogant, corrupt, misogynistic, downright cool. Craig would be, in my view.

So when was the cinematic Bond last selfish, needlessly arrogant, corrupt, misogynistic and downright cool? I think you'd have to go back to FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE.

Craig could work brilliantly as 007, but ONLY if they're seriously intending to return to a vision of the character that totally disappeared from screens round about 1964, and to throw on extra "grittiness" and "realism" with a trowel. It would have to be the movie equivalent of Jim's fiction.

So, yes, Craig could be a fine choice, but it would all depend on a willingness to change the series almost beyond recognition in order to accommodate him.... and, of course, on the panache to carry out such a major shift in content and tone properly.

Well, I was arguing against the much-perceived notion that Dalton was the most faithful to Fleming's character, Loomis. And Fleming's character had all of that stuff (maybe not the corruption, actually - must be THE HEART BELEEDS ICE still reverberating in my mind), but Dalton's performance didn't. I liked Dalton's performances - don't think they were the closest to Fleming's though. I think they were arguably the furthest away. I wasn't arguing that Craig would be entirely faithful to Fleming - but I do think he'd have a shot at being more faithful than Dalton. I think he could give a performance that had all of Dalton's strengths, with a pinchj of the wit and charm and arrogance and coolness that was missing.

For the sake of it, post-Connery film examples of

Selfishness
Lazenby's infidelity to Tracy at Piz Gloria. Brosnan risking the mission because he wants to screw Elektra - perhaps not slefishness, exactly, but unprofessional. Can you imagine Dalton doing it? Neither can I. If Dalton's Bond was assigned to work with Brosnan's, they'd loathe each other. DaltonBond would see BrosnanBond as totally unprofessional and dick-led. BrosnanBond would wish DaltonBond would relax a smidgeon and learn how to dress.

Arrogance
It's not so much individual lines, but the reading of them. Moore's reaching for the chamoagne bucket at the end of his films, arrogantly assuming he's got her. Lazenby's entire performance until the final few minutes reeks of arrogance. Some would say Brosnan's smug, but that's just arrogance you don't think's justified. 'I never miss', perhaps?

Corruption
Well, as I said, perhaps not this one. Though he does countermand orders quite frequently. Dalton even goes rogue. But okay, perhaps not this one.

Misogyny
Moore is fairly misognystic in LIVE AND LET DIE and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, I think. His scene with Rosie Carver when she enters his room in the former, for instance. Slapping Andrea. Brosnan making phallic gags and the scene with Warmflash (both of which I find excuricating, but still). "It *was* open. Just tight, from lack of use." Oh, I'm not allowed that one?

Downright cool
Lazenby fighting anyone. Moore introducing himself. The way he turns down Octopussy's job offer was pretty cool. Brosnan's tie thing. There's lots of downright cool.

[Loomis]

But I submit that the last time they gave us all those elements in the same film, and featuring very strongly, was 1963. Yep, Craig could do all those things and more, but I fear that the brew would simply be too strong. I'd be much more optimistic about his chances if his looks were closer to those of Clive Owen than to those of Robert Carlyle or Christopher Eccleston.

As it is, I honestly don't think we have a prayer of seeing Craig as Bond. Yes, MGM offered him the role. Yes, CBn's "sources" are saying he's back in the running. And in a big way, too.

But I'll still be utterly stunned if he lands the gig.

[spynovelfan]

You didn't say they all had to feature in the same damn

[Seannery]

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 firstly I would agree Craig may not be the favorite to win the role out of those who will test soon but again that he is taken as seriously to be one of the few to get a filmed screen test means that some here may be too quick to discount him. Really we are just all guessing--I know just stating the obvious but so many are SO SURE he won't get 007 that it should be said.

I saw Craig in the Layer Cake preview and he looked around 33, 34, 35 or so--not 52. And Loomis I don't agree at all with you that he would be an ultra serious Bond--you are missing the elegance and subtle buoyancy of his persona and acting. He can do a traditonal Bond such as Goldeneye, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and even something like For Your Eyes Only. I'm not the greatest fan of an ultra serious approach(though it can be nice in spots or for a change of pace) but I don't think Craig will corner us hardline into that approach.

Why would he take Bond? Well he is screen testing, so he's interested unlike Owen. And he's not a traditional mainstream leading man so Bond gives him the opportunity--and yes you can say not being mainstream would make him a less likely Bond. Maybe but a screen test will see if he has that Bondian spark.

That said he's not my favorite candidate but I could see him working. I don't know if he will get it and he may not be the most likely but he is definitely in the competition so you can't just say he won't get Bond for sure.

[bondphan]

P.s. most women that I have discussed him with over the last few days find him incredibly sexy.

Not this lady. I find him a tad better than Woody Allen. Not my definition of "incredibly sexy." My definition of "incredibly sexy" is Gerry Butler.

[pieffra]

I see Craig better as a good evil guy than James Bond!!!
That's my impression.
In the picture at the premiere, seems to have something like Robert De Niro's smile.
I would rather see him in a Bourne movie type

[Alessandra]

don't know if you've already read this, but
http://comingsoon.ne...ws.php?id=11032

Wade talks about Haggis rewriting the script.

sorry, been on vacation for nine days so don't really know what has been mentioned. I read here and there mentions of robert wade but didn't see whether the story was cited..
this story at least is factual and not about gossip. Quotes, dates, all that's necessary to make a story reliable. what a pain though, if they still are rewriting the script things CANNOT be good.
Give Hugh Jackman the part and cut it out! it's only a matter of MONEY if people say no at first.. that is the truth!

[Shrublands]

P.s. most women that I have discussed him with over the last few days find him incredibly sexy.

Not this lady. I find him a tad better than Woody Allen. Not my definition of "incredibly sexy." My definition of "incredibly sexy" is Gerry Butler.

I clearly don

[spynovelfan]

Give Hugh Jackman the part and cut it out! it's only a matter of MONEY if people say no at first.. that is the truth!

I don't think it's as simple as that. In the long-term, Bond would be very likely to harm Jackman's career. Without it, he can make even more money. So even if you offered him a ton, would you be able to match what he'd get without Bond? I also suspect he already has more than enough money, and that doing something that he loves and will be critically acclaimed for would be more important. Do you think offering tons of cash would be enough to get Stephen King to write a Bond novel? He already has tons of cash. Same with Jackman. Why on earth would he do it? He's already a film star.

[Skudor]

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?

Pretty much what I think. The only thing I'd add is that if Bond ceises to be a smooth good looking secret agent and becomes Daniel Craig the Bond franchise would become just another action movie. Bond good looks are part of what defines the series and puts it apart from other franchises / movies.

[thespecialist]

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.

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? 

It was an observation, not judgemental. Make of it what you will.

Anyway, you say that you aren't suggesting it be based on looks alone, but have you ever seen Alex O'Lachlan in a movie? Have you ever seen him act?

[Skudor]

Let's just hope they are putting as much thought into the character of the villain and the villain's caper because that's the real backbone of a great Bond film. I do think they've somehow forgotten this. All these "personal" missions... Starting with LTK, Bond films suddenly started being about James Bond. I really think they have it -backwards and that's one of the reasons the Brosnan era films have not been up to snuff.

Thus far, everything I've heard about CR tells me they have not figured this out and we will have yet another Bond film that strives to be a Drama. 

So totally and utterly true. And sad.

[Alessandra]

P.s. most women that I have discussed him with over the last few days find him incredibly sexy.

Not this lady. I find him a tad better than Woody Allen. Not my definition of "incredibly sexy." My definition of "incredibly sexy" is Gerry Butler.

ahahahhaha a tad better than Woody Allen is just great. NOT THIS LADY EITHER!! PUH LEEZE!! this guy sexy!??!?! sexy is Hugh Jackman, sexy is George Clooney, sexy is Patrick Dempsey... sexy to death is Marat Safin!! (so ok, a tennis player, but I needed a good example!! lol ) NOT THIS OLD GUY whose body looks as if it's already falling apart! (i am afraid to see the skin tremble while he puts together the gun... he would need A LOT of gym to BARELY look ok without a shirt!!)