47 replies to this topic

[Stax]

These pics were taken yesterday at the press conference for The Visiting (pka Invasion). Is it me or does he look like he's had some sort of botox or laser work done on his skin? He looks so much younger than in other pics and much more Bond-like, IMO. Though, I still prefer a dark-haired Bond. Pics are credited to WireImage.com:

Attached Files

•  daniel_craig1.jpg   38.98KB   768 downloads
•  daniel_craig2.jpg   33.53KB   679 downloads

[Stax]

One more pic, see below.

Attached Files

•  daniel_craig3.jpg   34.58KB   596 downloads

[Righty007]

He's still an ugly chap. Good thing he's going to be Le Chiffre instead of James Bond. Damn, I'm gullible.

[Cody]

Those are much better than the usual candids. Dark hair or not, it's fine by me if those are pics of Bond #6.

[K1Bond007]

He looks the same to me and no doubt if he were to be the next Bond they'd dye his hair.

[Slaezenger]

Is it me or does he look like he's had some sort of botox or laser work done on his skin? He looks so much younger than in other pics and much more Bond-like, IMO.

...It's you -- and no matter how one tries to photograph him, it is absurd that this otherwise wonderful actor should be so remarkably miscast as James Bond.

[deth]

those are the best pics I've seen of him yet... he almost looks like he might be fine as Bond... almost.

[Qwerty]

I just don't see him being James Bond from those pics above.

[Loeffelholz]

Yes...an excellent Le Chiffre.

[MattofSteel]

It's just....wrong. It's wrong. The man is not James Bond. If you were to show me a photo of him without my knowing who he was, the last person I would have thought he looks like is a would-be 007. He's just....wrong. I'd take Pierce back one more time over this fellow any day.

[Martin Mystery]

Craig would be a FANTASTIC James Bond.

I pray it's either Brosnan, Craig, Butler or Purefoy.

We want none of that reboot crap!

MM

[Loeffelholz]

Daniel Craig IS Le Chiffre!

[Loomis]

Dark hair or not, it's fine by me if those are pics of Bond #6.

Fine by me, too.

But something tells me that Sony has other ideas.

[Loomis]

These pics were taken yesterday at the press conference for The Visiting (pka Invasion).

A press conference, eh?

*Imagines questions put to Craig and his answers*

JOURNALIST: Yes or no to Bond?

CRAIG: I'm very busy.

JOURNALIST: Is there any truth to the Bond rumours?

CRAIG: Well, I can't say very much, obviously. I don't know. It's kind of up in the air at the moment. We shall see. I was offered the role by the studio, and I'd love to do it, but I'd probably be too edgy for them. I don't know what's going to happen. It's a shame it won't happen. These things happen. Of course I'd love to play Bond! It's every schoolboy's dream. I don't really crave that level of fame. I'm very busy. *Craig's mobile rings* Excuse me. Yeah? You've found another "Casino Royale" first? Good condition? Nah, too expensive, keep looking though, cheers, later. I'm very busy.

[XXX]

You see, Craig isn't ugly at all! He looks great in these pics. I'd be very happy in the unlikely event of him becoming Bond

[Loomis]

If Sony hired Brosnan, it'd be giving the people what they wanted 10 years ago (and, indeed what they wanted 20 years ago, judging by the overwhelming global call for Brosnan to replace Moore that one reads about on sites like this).

If Sony hired Craig, it'd be giving the people what they want now.

I can see it so clearly now: Craig would be a gamble from a number of perspectives, yes (although I really don't buy the widespread assumption that Brosnan would still be a 100% guaranteed smash success as Bond in 2006, with no risks attached whatsoever.... especially given the fact that the public has long been primed to expect a new, younger 007 in CASINO ROYALE), but he'd be a Bond very much in tune with current tastes and trends. I'm not just talking about Bourne, but also about fashions like Brit gangster chic, the Kate Moss crowd.... He'd be a very modern Bond.... but also very timeless. And before this post gets any more pretentious....

[[dark]]

If Sony hired Brosnan, it'd be giving the people what they wanted 10 years ago (and, indeed what they wanted 20 years ago, judging by the overwhelming global call for Brosnan to replace Moore that one reads about on sites like this).

It'd also be giving people what they wanted four years ago, which is as recent as we can get in this franchise.

If Sony hired Craig, it'd be giving the people what they want now.

So certain? I wouldn't say the public (and indeed fan) reaction to Craig as Bond has been that favourable. I'm sure most Joe Publics wouldn't even know who he was.

[Loomis]

[quote]It'd also be giving people what they wanted four years ago, which is as recent as we can get in this franchise.

[/quote]

But was Brosnan really what people wanted four years ago, or was it that he was the only option Eon gave them and they had to like it or lump it? Who's to say that DIE ANOTHER DAY wouldn't have done just as well if not better with Russell Crowe or Clive Owen or Fred Bloggs in the lead?

Sony's rumoured clinging to Brosnan seems shortsighted to me, as well as indicative of greed, contempt for audiences (heavens above, don't give the poor dumb lambs a new James Bond - they'll be all confused) and a refusal to take any kind of risk. If they'd been running the show in the '80s, no doubt they'd have put Moore in LICENCE TO KILL.

Sony's plans seem to rest on the nauseating idea that you and I wish only to see very slight variations on the exact same film with the exact same stars again and again and again.

[quote]So certain?

[Captain Indigo]

Those aren't pictures of Daniel Craig, they're pictures of James Bond.

[Loomis]

Those aren't pictures of Daniel Craig, they're pictures of James Bond.

Yep. Like Owen (and no other rumoured candidate I can think of), Craig has "the Bond look" in his eyes. Sure, his face may not be yer standard VERY HANDSOME traditional MovieBond, but look at his eyes, his attitude, his self-assurance. You can see the combined legacy of Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan branded in the innermost fibres of his being like lettering through a stick of Blackpool rock. Oh, and he definitely has that "if he hit you you'd stay down" quality. Yes, I know that he's only slightly taller than Prince, but the magic of the movies can do amazing things.

My first choice - and I strongly suspect that of both Eon and Sony - remains Owen, but it's obvious that he doesn't want the role. Craig would be a very satisfactory alternative to the Clivemeister, though.

Shame that the chances of it happening are practically nil.

[WC]

Definitely NOT Bond from those photos. Still too villainous looking. If someone like Vladimir Putin wore a wig, you still wouldn't cast him as Bond either.

[Oddjob's nephew]

For goodness sake - this man just isn't Bond. He may act well, and have the persona, but he hasn't got that vital ingredient - good looks. He isn't handsome, he looks nothing like you'd even imagine Bond to look like. Women wouldn't swoon after him - he looks like a farm labourer.

Robbie Coltrane is a good actor, but you will never see him as James Bond.

The Bond series will go down the pan if they hire Craig - he looks so very ordinary. You don't want someone ordinary to be Bond. Its obvious some Bond fans are so desperate for Casino Royale, they wouldn't care if they hired Leslie Nielsen.

[XXX]

ORDINARY?! His rugged good looks are anything but ordinary. Sure, he won't be your metrosexual "pretty boy", but then again, guys aren't ment to fall in love with him ...
It would also set a clear statement AGAINST the ongoing feminising of male people in the media.

The only reason you guys don't want to look like Craig is because you are not manly enough

[Captain Indigo]

if Daniel Craig or I aren't James Bond in Casino Royale i'm not going to see it.

[H.M.Servant]

ing good looking man that is that Daniel Craig.

[avl]

I can see it so clearly now: Craig would be a gamble from a number of perspectives, yes (although I really don't buy the widespread assumption that Brosnan would still be a 100% guaranteed smash success as Bond in 2006, with no risks attached whatsoever.... especially given the fact that the public has long been primed to expect a new, younger 007 in CASINO ROYALE), but he'd be a Bond very much in tune with current tastes and trends. I'm not just talking about Bourne, but also about fashions like Brit gangster chic, the Kate Moss crowd.... He'd be a very modern Bond.... but also very timeless. And before this post gets any more pretentious....

Loomis you are dead right. Craig would be a contemporary take on Bond - a new version. It seems obvious to me that Craig would carry the Connery/Dalton (cool/tough/intense) side of the Bond legacy very well (as opposed to the Moore/Brosnan wing of light/pretty), adding his own brand of Noughties cool.

In casting a new Bond they need IMO to make it differnt from Brosnan, but still within the tradition of Bond...Craig achieves this and, now that Owen seems to have removed himself, he has got to be the best option of all the names to date.

Don't get me started on Cavill - he may be a good actor (I can't say, I've only seen him in Count of Monte Cristo, and he did not shout "Young Bond" to me in that film) but all the pictures I've seen of him, he looks like a rosy cheeked first year University student. Would "men want to be him and women want to be with him"? Some women of a certain age might want to mother him I guess...tuck him up in a warm scarf so that he doesn't catch cold...

[WC]

ORDINARY?! His rugged good looks are anything but ordinary. Sure, he won't be your metrosexual "pretty boy", but then again, guys aren't ment to fall in love with him ...
It would also set a clear statement AGAINST the ongoing feminising of male people in the media.

The only reason you guys don't want to look like Craig is because you are not manly enough

If you want to be so manly, why not go for a Michael Jackson look? One would have to be pretty tough and thick-skinned to walk around with THAT face on!

[Spoon]

If Sony hired Brosnan, it'd be giving the people what they wanted 10 years ago (and, indeed what they wanted 20 years ago, judging by the overwhelming global call for Brosnan to replace Moore that one reads about on sites like this).

If Sony hired Craig, it'd be giving the people what they want now.

This is completely off, I think. When we did a Brosnan yes/no poll here, Brosnan got two-thirds support, and he is surely less popular here than he is amongst the public at large. I'd be shocked if he had any less than 80% support among the public at large. Probably more.

Does that mean that the film will flop if Brosnan isn't in it? No; #21, at least, will be successful no matter who's in it. But, it does mean, basically, that things are still going well. Naturally, we don't want to be like the old Batman film series and switch actors every film. Although we understand that Bonds are ultimately replaceable if necessary, you still want experience in the lead role, and you want the audience to feel a sense of warmth and loyalty towards the Bond you have. So as long as things are going well, you want to ride the actor you've got for as long as possible. Which, in Brosnan's case, is one more film.

Bond films have always been influenced by other popular action films. But they didn't make Bond into Chow Yun-fat in 1997, they didn't make him into Indiana Jones in 1983, they didn't make him a Jedi Knight in 1979, they didn't make him a kung-fu fighter in 1974, and they didn't make him into Shaft or Superfly in 1973. Working in a bit of the flavor of Bourne and the British gangster films is great. Trying to write such a film and call it a Bond film is not great. Nor is casting someone as Bond who would make far more sense as the lead in a Guy Ritchie film.

Loomis, if you don't want a "grim and gritty"/"back to Fleming" film as you say, then I don't understand your point of view in general. Surely you don't think they're going to make a Roger Moore film with Daniel Craig?

[Loomis]

Loomis, if you don't want a "grim and gritty"/"back to Fleming" film as you say, then I don't understand your point of view in general.  Surely you don't think they're going to make a Roger Moore film with Daniel Craig?

Oh, I'd be quite happy with a "grim and gritty"/"back to Fleming" film, as long as it were done well. The problem over the past few films, as I see it, is that the Bond people have made a lot of noise about going in that direction, while failing to deliver finished products that were anything other than fudges (TWINE being the chief example, IMO).

Rather than see more trying and failing miserably to get back to Fleming, give us dark and meaningful James Bond, etc., I wish they'd just make a good old-fashioned unpretentious Moore-type film.

[marktmurphy]

How can you even do grim and gritty Fleming-style? His books were anything but grim and gritty; they're glamorous. To my mind the films get the feel of Fleming right already. Even the Bourne films make a kind of glamour of 'gritty'- a very picturesque down and dirty.