47 replies to this topic

[Sam Fisher]

Have to agree. Although Craig is very photogenic he's not James Bond.

[Loomis]

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.

Agreed with all that. But, still, I'd be happy with a grim and gritty Bond film (or a comedy Bond film, or whatever kind of Bond film.... well, within reason), as long as they did it well. But, no, Fleming was never grim and gritty.

[Triton]

I agree Loomis. How could you ever be "gritty" and "realistic" with Brioni suits, Aston Martin motorcars, and other hedonistic elements?

[XXX]

Have to agree. Although Craig is very photogenic he's not James Bond.

See, that's exactly what I'd say about Brosnan. He looks perfectly reasonable.
He has the disadvantage that his acting is bored and totally bland. Like his movies. Like his audience.

[Spoon]

Fine, but the point remains, though. I do agree that the attempts to "peel back the layers of the character" in the post-GoldenEye Brosnan era have been unsatisfying... soooo, why would they succeed with Craig? Because if they do hire him, you know that's what they're going for. It's the same writers and producers now as it has been for most of the Brosnan era. If it hasn't worked yet, is it really going to work just because you put Craig in it? And Craig would not do well with a lighter film. So, what kind of Bond movie is Craig going to make that is going to be any good?

I don't quite think go back to Moore, but I do think go back to a film that shows us Bond as the iron fist in the velvet glove -- a guy who gets genuine pleasure out of food, drink, globetrotting, seduction, and danger, but is also capable of being a killer as well. That's why I don't want Craig. If you put your iron fist in an iron glove, there isn't much to that, is there.

Edited by Spoon, 25 September 2005 - 08:21 PM.

[XXX]

It's the same writers and producers now as it has been for most of the Brosnan era.  If it hasn't worked yet, is it really going to work just because you put Craig in it?  And Craig would not do well with a lighter film.  So, what kind of Bond movie is Craig going to make that is going to be any good?

Think about it. The same producer who was pretty much in overall creative control of the series since the most outrageous Moore films (Moonraker) co-WROTE Licence to kill. With a gritty feel and look from the same director that brought us the lush and fantastic Octopussy. The key difference? The actor!
It is obvious the lead actor defines the style of the films. Connery was the Movie-Bond. Lazenby had a pretty neutral "producer's" outing, he didn't get his own style. We all know about (and love) the Moore aera. Dalton began with a pretty straight ahead "producer's Bond", but LTK was pretty much in the vain of the character he played. Goldeneye was again much more a "producer's Bond" and hence and acceptable protrail, but Brosnan DID go in a certain direction with the series even then.
You know what I call that direction?
Bland

[Loomis]

Fine, but the point remains, though.  I do agree that the attempts to "peel back the layers of the character" in the post-GoldenEye Brosnan era have been unsatisfying... soooo, why would they succeed with Craig?  Because if they do hire him, you know that's what they're going for.  It's the same writers and producers now as it has been for most of the Brosnan era.  If it hasn't worked yet, is it really going to work just because you put Craig in it? 

Well, I think it would work better with Craig, simply because he comes across as much grittier and rougher around the edges than Brosnan (although you could argue that, as both of them are actors, both would be capable of giving gritty and rough-around-the-edges performances). I guess I'm hoping that, by going with Craig, the filmmakers would basically be forced to "peel back the layers of the character" and so on, but to do it properly this time and with absolutely no half-measures (still, this is hardly Fleming's Bond, as marktmurphy points out, and nothing to do with the traditional Eon Bond either). As you say, Craig would not do well with a lighter film.

I know this is a cop-out, but, hey, it's Broccoli and Wilson who dragged Craig into this, not me. They're the ones testing him. So they must have the feeling that he'd make a good Bond. They started it.

[Alex Zamudio]

He looks fantastic, he will be a perfect 007, If Brosnan does not come back*, then Craig will be a real killer James Bond!!

* Since viewing the Matador Trailer, I think that Brosnan has matured into a very rugged and slick actor, I believe he can deliver a gritty killer performance, as Craig can, so for me either man as James Bond in Casino Royale will be cool a thing, so EON, just get going with the film!!!

This is getting very exciting!!!!

Regards.

Edited by Alex Zamudio, 25 September 2005 - 11:33 PM.

[Marquis]

Looks fantastic?

http://inlandempires...avage.sized.jpg

..You must give me the name of your oculist.

[XXX]

Still looks fantastic...
I'm sure my oculist would say the same.

[tdalton]

Have to agree. Although Craig is very photogenic he's not James Bond.

See, that's exactly what I'd say about Brosnan. He looks perfectly reasonable.
He has the disadvantage that his acting is bored and totally bland. Like his movies. Like his audience.

I agree 100% with this statement. Brosnan is very photogenic, but, IMO, he has proven time and time again that he is not James Bond, despite the fact that EON tried to convince us 4 times that he was.

[morganhavoc]

Anybody see the Taylor of Panama? Brosnan was "gritty", but the Bond films haven't been "gritty" since From Russia with Love, Dalton tried and if the infighting at Eon and UA hadn't derailed the series, may have given us the Bond films you seem to crave.
Brosnan was extemely well known when he was chosen, he was the defacto replacement for Moore since the first episode of Remmington Steel. Dalton always had the shadow of Brosnan over him and the perception that he had stolen the role away from Brosnan.
Doesn't anyone realize that this dance between Brosnan and EON and Sony is just part of Hollywood. Think of this like a business ( Because it is), what product do you want to invest 140 million in? A tried and true money maker ( Brosnan) seen all over the world as Bond or go with an actor who isn't very well know and what he is know for mostly is insecure weak villian roles ( Road to Perdition). Yes I know Layer Cake and his other films, but who really saw those?
Craig is a good actor, but not Bond.

Edited by Mister Asterix, 26 September 2005 - 03:47 PM.

[XXX]

Doesn't anyone realize that this dance between Brosnan and EON and Sony is just part of Hollywood.

Quite possible. But that doesn't mean I give up hope. There is the ongoing battle between creativity and the greedy studio executives. A good mainstream film is both a product and at least somewhat artisitcally acceptable.
If you look at recent Hollywood films, you tend to think one site is slowly winning over the other.
To get to the point, I would REALLY like to see studios take chances, be it Craig, Bond Begins or something else. I don't want Bond 21, I want Casino Royale.
It's kind of frustrating to see people demanding Sony and Brosnan, but then complain if they get DAD.

[Captain Indigo]

If chosen, Daniel Craig will be the saviour of James Bond.

[luciusgore]

He does look macho. But a blonde Bond?

[Marketto007]

Please EON, Daniel Craig must be Le Chiffre!!!

xxx

[Sam Fisher]

If chosen, Daniel Craig will be the saviour of James Bond.

Or the person who brings the series to a crashing, burning death.


Then I can laugh because I gather some of you Craig fans are Anti Dalton people. Oh when the shoe is on the other foot.

[Captain Indigo]

I like Timothy Dalton

[Shrublands]

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. 

Hello, Goldfinger (he loves Gold) how are you?

Good to see you here!