454 replies to this topic

[Taro Todoroki]

I think if Craig is not Bond, Eon should say something before this gets out of hand with the mainstream media. It seems everyone is reporting it as fact.

[Loomis]

I think if Craig is not Bond, Eon should say something before this gets out of hand with the mainstream media. It seems everyone is reporting it as fact. 

Yes. Exactly the point I was longwindedly trying to make.

[tbp82]

If Craig isn't Bond you know I change my mind EON would not be the one losing it would be Daniel Craig losing or his Public Relations people. I know the reports of Bond keep Craigs name in the news and I know it has helped his film "Layer Cake" which a lot of people bought/rented just to see Craig. But, does he really want to be known as the man who lost the role of James Bond twice. If these reports are true EON should just make the statement it is not that bad and after all the arguing and bickering they are getting someone that it appears people are willing to accept.

[Bon-san]

As the day wears on, I find myself hoping for a more traditional leading man-type. I hate to write that, because I loved what Craig did in Layer Cake. But the heart wants what the heart wants, and my inclination is for a Butler, a Jackman, an Owen. Or an unknown who will "wow" everyone.

I don't think that's fair to Craig, to discount him in advance. And if he gets the role, I'll be on board, rooting for him and the film all the way. But there it is.

Just had to get that off my chest.

[Loomis]

If Craig isn't Bond you know I change my mind EON would not be the one losing it would be Daniel Craig losing or his Public Relations people. ... does he really want to be known as the man who lost the role of James Bond twice.

Absolutely, tbp82. Yes, I guess there's the old "But Craig's getting bags of publicity" argument, but he doesn't need to chase publicity by riding the Bond rumour bandwagon (not right until the bitter end, anyway), not at his level, and not when his roles in MUNICH and INVASION are just around the corner. Besides, he's already getting acres of coverage (probably not so much in the US, though, I expect) thanks to the Sienna Miller stories (although you could argue that that's not particularly positive publicity in some ways, and that being linked to Bond would help ensure that it's not all just "love rat Dan" or whatever).

Of course, there's an alternative option to an Eon denial: Craig could simply deny the Bond rumours himself, if indeed he is not the new 007.

[Loomis]

As the day wears on, I find myself hoping for a more traditional leading man-type.  I hate to write that, because I loved what Craig did in Layer Cake.  But the heart wants what the heart wants, and my inclination is for a Butler, a Jackman, an Owen.  Or an unknown who will "wow" everyone.

I don't think that's fair to Craig, to discount him in advance.  And if he gets the role, I'll be on board, rooting for him and the film all the way.  But there it is.

Just had to get that off my chest.

I feel exactly the same way, Bon-san. I seem to remember Jaelle, a member of CBn who hasn't posted in quite a while, saying, during a discussion on Owen, something along the lines of: "He'd be a challenge even to those of us who'd welcome him as Bond." Very true, and it stuck in my mind. And it's very similar with Craig, only the challenge is, of course, even greater.

Be careful what you wish for, I guess. Back when there seemed absolutely zero prospect of it, I was always hankering after "challenging", "gritty", "back-to-basics", "ultra-dark", etc. etc. Bond films. But is that what I really want?

It's strange: part of me really wants Craig to get the part, and part of me would be very disappointed if he got it.

[Marquis]

[quote name='Bon-san' date='12 October 2005 - 18:29']As the day wears on, I find myself hoping for a more traditional leading man-type.

Edited by Marquis, 12 October 2005 - 06:44 PM.

[Bon-san]

It's strange: part of me really wants Craig to get the part, and part of me would be very disappointed if he got it.

I know!

Crazy, innit?

[Marquis]

It's strange: part of me really wants Craig to get the part, and part of me would be very disappointed if he got it.

Again, exactly how i feel. It's really quite odd

[tbp82]

Exactly Craig could deny the rumors and put them to rest instead he says not comment. EON could deny and they appear to say "no comment" and from what I have read from their supposed people it appears you are getting more of we will tell you when we fell like it instead of a decision isn't made.

[Loomis]

It's strange: part of me really wants Craig to get the part, and part of me would be very disappointed if he got it.

Again, exactly how i feel. It's really quite odd

Yeah, crazy. Craig's so controversial a choice for Bond that he even his supporters are split down the middle over him!

To be fair, though, I'll be both pleased and disappointed no matter who's cast. The only actor I'd be 100% delighted by is Owen (who seems out of the question, of course), but even then I guess a part of me would be wishing they'd found another Moore.

[SecretAgent007]

Craig was mentioned this morning on the Today Show. I'm feeling ill Here is a link to an article on AOL http://articles.news...S00010000000001

Damn this guy is homely looking

[Tired And Emotional]

From today's Guardian.

There's more to being attractive than being conventionally handsome but yeah, he's a bit, um, plain.

[SecretAgent007]

Great name, Tired And Emotional. That is just how I feel over all of this news. Yeah there is more to it than being good looking, but it's big part of the character. He looks like Rocky at the end of the the first film. I think your description "plain" is being very very kind.

[dinovelvet]

Craig was mentioned this morning on the Today Show.  I'm feeling ill   Here is a link to an article on AOL  http://articles.news...S00010000000001

Damn this guy is homely looking

And ironically, I think that's the BEST photo of Craig I've ever seen...to me he definitely passes for James Bond in that picture.

[Gri007]

So if Daniel Craig is going to be the next Bond, isn't he a tad old to play the 'young Bond'. How old is he late thrities early forties

[dinovelvet]

I think if Craig is not Bond, Eon should say something before this gets out of hand with the mainstream media. It seems everyone is reporting it as fact. 

Yes. Exactly the point I was longwindedly trying to make.

Yeah this particular story has penetrated the mainstream media more than ANY other New Bond rumor over the last year. Its on the front page of AOL, its on the evening news, MSNBC website, effectively people out there are hearing that Daniel Craig is the new James Bond, nobody's bothering to read any of the 'unconfirmed' stuff. If Craig is NOT the new Bond, it'll be somewhat embarrassing for EON and the new bloke at the press conference to have to deal with the "So it isn't Daniel Craig then? Why not?" questions. The longer EON wait to counter this, the more foolish the whole thing will look. Unless of course it really is Craig, in which case just simply confirm it already.

Edited by dinovelvet, 12 October 2005 - 07:32 PM.

[Tired And Emotional]

I think he's 37 isn't he?

Edited to add that IMDb has his DoB as 1968 so yes, 37.

Edited by Tired And Emotional, 12 October 2005 - 07:36 PM.

[Loomis]

If Craig is NOT the new Bond, it'll be somewhat embarrassing for EON and the new bloke at the press conference to have to deal with the "So it isn't Daniel Craig then? Why not?" questions.

Yes, unless the announcement is really still a very long way off (but even then, it's likely that Craig's name would come up to a perhaps embarrassing extent).

And you're right: this particular story has "penetrated the mainstream media more than ANY other New Bond rumor", apart from....

....the LAST time Craig was announced as Bond! (Which was back in April, I think.)

[Alessandra]

Here's a pic of Craig looking positively Bondian, with darker hair.

Daniel Craig, or Daniel Cray (as Martin Campbell calls him), looks nothing like James Bond. And, with this photo, his image just gets worse. Who are we kidding? The guy looks like Vladimir Putin with a cheap toupee. Moreover, he looks too pale and sickly-looking and has a fat face. Fleming would've been aghast had he been alive today. In the books, Fleming leaves the impression that Bond is somewhat lanky and sharp featured. In From Russia With Love, when the Russian generals study one of Bond's photos, they see a "dark, clean-cut face with a three-inch scar showing whitely down the sunburned skin of the right cheek." The well tanned face reminds us of Bond's comment in "Casino Royale" that he favors the tropics. More importantly, this image of Bond is a throwback to the stereotyped image of a British officer in colonial India or Burma--a dedicated civil servant, imperialistic and with an aristocratic flair. Moreover, Fleming's Bond is Royal Navy to the hilt, and something of a snob with his penchant for gold-banded cigarettes rolled in Grosvenor Square. In contrast, Daniel Cray has an odd problem looking confident in evening wear.

There is the well known story that, For "Dr. No," Broccoli and Saltzman asked the novelist for his suggestions, and Fleming put forward actors such as Roger Moore and David Niven. In his autobiography, "When the Snow Melts," Cubby Broccoli states that the first actor he considered was Cary Grant (Grant was already in his late 50s). With these actors, the producers, as well as Fleming, envisioned the debonair, urbane type. As for Daniel Cray: however the filmmakers pile the make-up on his grusome mug, he'll never fit the part. But, hey, you get what you pay for; and if the goal of the Eon controllers is to lose money, then they certainly made the right choice. (As for my own survey, I showed Daniel Cray's photo to my co-workers this morning, and all of them--both men and women--burst in laughter. One woman even cracked, "he looks like a boiled egg!")

My comment is: Craig looks positively unattractive to me in this picture. And positively out of place even in a normal suit, let alone a tuxedo.
I don't like the looks of the man AT ALL just like your colleagues. And I think he's got none of the looks and none of the class to be Bond. But I don't make casting decisions.
I must tell you Lord, your line on Putin and the cheap toupee had me fall off the chair laughing..!!
Still, if they do cast him (and I don't think they will), they must have a reason.. I don't know what it is but there must be one. (yes aside from "they're mad!").

[Loomis]

Still, if they do cast him (and I don't think they will), they must have a reason.. I don't know what it is but there must be one. (yes aside from "they're mad!").

Erm, tax writeoff? (See THE PRODUCERS.)

Just kidding. Yes, they must have their reasons, I guess.

Hmmm....

[Alessandra]

Yeah, I know I'm gonna catch a lot of flack for saying this, but I don't really care if the movie version of James Bond looks like the book version of James Bond!

The truth is that the movie version of James Bond has always been a guy that woman find attractive, and men would not mind looking like themselves in some cases.
The public has come to expect that no matter what Ian Fleming described. And the majority of the general public have never read an Ian Fleming novel, and don't give a damn what Fleming described in his books. If they were ever going to worry whether or not the movie version of James Bond looked like Fleming's book version it should have been back in 1962. But since the public have always expected a guy who is considered to be good looking, and who is tall and has dark hair, that is what EON should feel obligated to give them!

"Always give the people what they want." And they don't want someone like Daniel Craig, or a baby-Bond either!

Can't argue with any of that. If it's really going to be Craig, I'll look forward to CASINO ROYALE and his interpretation of Bond, but the points you make are fair enough and won't cop any flack from me.

all of us here will watch Casino Royale. But I hardly doubt that Craig will give the needful refreshment to Bond. He simply does not look the part. He has a knittered face, a big nose, he is to small, he has very little greasy hair and eyes that don`t kick any(woman) from the chair. Man,this is bond!!It is not "the piano" with harvey keitel! We are not searching for the best actor to perform a character for a an oscar nomination,we are searching for Bond! We all want Bond to continue that tradition of goodlooking charismatic actors.all oof them were fabulous: Connery, Lazenby, Moore,Dalton,Brosnan..and now Craig??Have they got tomatoes on their eyes?
Craig cannot get any chance because he simply doesn`t look the part,finish. It is easy to give a chance and credits to someone who looks the part. Because then it is only the question of "can he manage to convince all of us by his acting". But if you don`t simply look the part,there is nothing left to convince us,as long as we, that could be an idea, close our eyes when watching the movie.

Your last point is very true. I totaly agree.
Still, I keep thinking why they would choose him. I mean, come on, if they do choose him they must be convinced he would do ok?? nobody would willingly commit suicide with a Bond movie that's supposed to renew the franchise and get to more people? unless they're completely clueless that is.. lol

[Mister Asterix]

My comment is: Craig looks positively unattractive to me in this picture. And positively out of place even in a normal suit, let alone a tuxedo.
I don't like the looks of the man AT ALL just like your colleagues. And I think he's got none of the looks and none of the class to be Bond. But I don't make casting decisions.
I must tell you Lord, your line on Putin and the cheap toupee had me fall off the chair laughing..!!
Still, if they do cast him (and I don't think they will), they must have a reason.. I don't know what it is but there must be one. (yes aside from "they're mad!").

[mra]Yes, you

[Bon-san]

if i had the rights to the james bond franchise I'd do my best to erase the brosnan era from history

Really? And thereby, cutting yourself off from millions of dollars in revenue?

Or were you just adding yet another diss to your anti-Brosnan brigade today?

[avl]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' date='12 October 2005 - 19:54'][quote name='Alessandra' date='12 October 2005 - 14:44']My comment is: Craig looks positively unattractive to me in this picture. And positively out of place even in a normal suit, let alone a tuxedo.
I don't like the looks of the man AT ALL just like your colleagues. And I think he's got none of the looks and none of the class to be Bond. But I don't make casting decisions.
I must tell you Lord, your line on Putin and the cheap toupee had me fall off the chair laughing..!!
Still, if they do cast him (and I don't think they will), they must have a reason.. I don't know what it is but there must be one. (yes aside from "they're mad!").

[/quote]

[mra]Yes, you

[Alessandra]

Exactly Craig could deny the rumors and put them to rest instead he says not comment. EON could deny and they appear to say "no comment" and from what I have read from their supposed people it appears you are getting more of we will tell you when we fell like it instead of a decision isn't made.

We were talking about this yesterday and I think there's a point you're missing. Neither Craig nor Eon has any interest in denying the rumour. Craig, for getting free publicity and a lot of attention (even if he loses the Bond race, he's in any case going to be FAR more known to the public after all this, and it's not going to be "he lost Bond", but "he was considered for Bond"), Eon for getting a lot of publicity and maintaining the mistery surroundind the name until the very last minute.
The fact Craig's people say no comment just is a proof that whoever's involved in the casting is sworn to secrecy by Eon, and Eon doesn't deny anything because that's their line of conduct from the start: no comment, no hints, no nothing. if Eon denied, they'd make the list of names shorter, and people would have more chances to guess the candidate.
This said, I already pointed out yesterday that out of experience as journalist when PRs say "no comment" to a specific question like "so is it true that your client Daniel Craig is going to be Bond", it more often means "yes" rather than "no".
SO it may as well be true that Craig is Bond.

[Loomis]

So.... no word from CBn's "sources" on this?

[Alessandra]

[quote name='avl' date='12 October 2005 - 20:59'][quote name='Mister Asterix' date='12 October 2005 - 19:54'][quote name='Alessandra' date='12 October 2005 - 14:44']My comment is: Craig looks positively unattractive to me in this picture. And positively out of place even in a normal suit, let alone a tuxedo.
I don't like the looks of the man AT ALL just like your colleagues. And I think he's got none of the looks and none of the class to be Bond. But I don't make casting decisions.
I must tell you Lord, your line on Putin and the cheap toupee had me fall off the chair laughing..!!
Still, if they do cast him (and I don't think they will), they must have a reason.. I don't know what it is but there must be one. (yes aside from "they're mad!").

[/quote]

[mra]Yes, you

[blueman]

Any other "unknown" would also get little to no votes...

[tbp82]

Yeah no word from CBN or MI6 or any of the other fan sites. Oh yeah CBN was quick to jump the gun on Brosnan rumors "sources say younger Bond" etc. But neither is wanting to either confirm nor deny this Craig rumor. Interesting at the least.