454 replies to this topic

[morganhavoc]

BOO Hiss! Say it isn't so!

[spynovelfan]

didn't Fleming write that Bond has blond hair? Or am I totally off?

You're totally off, as a string of people may be about to tell you.

[Shrublands]

My problem with Lampert's credibility (over and above her being the Mail's entertainment/gossip columnist!) is that Craig as Bond conveniently fits into her obsession with Jude Law. If you Google her and Law you get over 700 results! Google her and James Bond - and remember how widely reported her Brosnan Axed piece got - and you get around 300. She has not only filed several articles on the recent Miller/Law saga - and note the reference to that at the top of this piece - she's also the journalist who 'broke' that Law had had an affair with Kidman. Kidman sued over that, and won substantial damages.

She'd have no qualms about running this story if it were false. Nobody can sue, so she's safe, and it's a guaranteed way of getting more readers to The Mail. There's also a fairly good chance of her being right - Craig is a favourite - in which case she's also got a scoop. If it's wrong - well no skin off her nose and the Mail and the Standard picked up a lot of traffic today.

Right, that's why I added that "Despite this new information, CBn has not been able to confirm via its regular sources that Craig is about to become the next James Bond. What we are able to confirm is, as reported, that a decission regarding the actor will be made this week."

Honestly, no idea if she is right, but just the fact she got the Brosnan thing right from the beginning and even set the stone rolling, I think it is definately worth an article.

Defiantly, it might be true it might not, but seeing her name at the top jumped off the page at me.

[Loomis]

If anyone's reliable, it's our very own zencat.

Discussing this with him yesterday here on CBn, it seems that Craig is a very, very serious candidate indeed.

http://debrief.comma...pic=25826&st=30

Now, zencat does not say that Craig is the new Bond; he tells us that he doesn't know who's going to be the new Bond, and he tells us that anything could happen. However, it seems that there may be quite a bit of smoke to the Craig fire.

Impossible for any of us to say whether Lampert is right or wrong (duh! Well, obviously!), but it does at least appear that she may be right.

[Tim007]

If I were in your position, I'd have run precisely the article you ran (but with one less 's' in 'decission'! ). She might well have something.

Affectionately,

Spynovelfan

You know, not my mother tongue Will correct it asap.

[Pussfeller]

didn't Fleming write that Bond has blond hair? Or am I totally off?

Yes, you are totally off.

Fleming wrote unambiguously that Bond had black hair.

Of course, the films have sometimes departed from this. Moore certainly had light hair. But if Craig were cast, I think he'd be given a dye job.

[H.M.Servant]

Guys.. things are getting UGLY.
News agencies and teletext services (notably reliable) here today say that producers are absolutely in complete DARKNESS on who to appoint. AND THAT THE FRONT RUNNERS ARE (AHEM AHEM): Jude Law, Hugh Grant and Di Caprio.
Now.. if THEY, who are reliable news sources, are so lacking information to write stuff like this, then sorry, I don't believe ONE WORD of ANYTHING the Mail says.
And if what the press agencies say is true then well sorry.. ROFLMAO!!
note: all blond the types here.. hugh grant may be a bit darker than blond, but he's far from dark haired. Never liked blond Bond. (Lol sorry for wordplay)
Anyway.. I think it's pointless to keep reporting stuff about the same names which appears on tabloids.. we know nothing, nobody knows anything.. because EON HAS NO IDEA YET!! (or at least that's what they want the press to believe). So how can the journos possibly know?!?
I am a journalist and I'm telling you: if there were ANY and I mean ANY hints on it, ALL the major newspapers and the tabloids would have it and run full page stories on this. AND they would all have the same name!
since this isn't happening. well sit back and relax, 'cause we're far from knowing who it will be. Sorry, but this is how it works..

This said, MANNNN!! I find Daniel Craig OLD, UGLY and WORKING CLASS looking...doesn't AT ALL respond to the Bond profile that Campbell so wisely mentioned. And he can't acquire class only with nice clothes and a nice car.. he just doesn't have it!! (it's just how I feel, let's clarify, I don't want to offend anyone!)
I DO hope those people are sane enough not to put someone like him to play Bond.. At that point, I'd rather see even JUDE LAW doing it! At least, he can be credible as a classy guy. And he's young and good looking. I wouldn't like Jude Law as Bond AT ALL, but certainly would like him better than Daniel Craig!

OLD, UGLY AND WORKING CLASS LOOKING?

Daniel Craig is a good looking guy. And he's got charisma, screen- presence and acting ability. Have you seen Layer Cake? Didn't think so. Maybe you should check that out before you comment. He would be fantastic as Bond. Maybe even better then Clive Owen.

And he's not old, at least not too old for Bond. He's 37.

And working class? please, Daniel Craig does not embody the British working class if anything.

But you're right, he is blonde. But so was Roger, and he was a great Bond.
And coincedently so is Jude Law.

Edited by Mister Asterix, 11 October 2005 - 05:09 PM.

[doublenoughtspy]

I'm still curious about how Campbell recently couldn't even remember Daniel Craig's name, whether accidently or on purpose.

There is also the rumor that they didn't get along.

If he does turn out to be the one, it will be an interesting production.

[Pussfeller]

I would prefer to see Bond played by an interesting, charismatic, commanding man like Craig than a mincing fop like Jude Law (or Pierce Brosnan). Looks are important, but not all-important, and it isn't as though Craig is irredeemably ugly. He's rough, but so what? We haven't had a tough Bond since Lazenby.

[mcsearg]

Wow, this is becoming intolerable. At this point, I wouldnt be surprised to hear that they picked Rowin Atkinson (Mr Bean) to be Bond. SOOOOO many reports, are they true, are they false? Who knows?? Does EON know? I dont think so. Personally, I am not a huge fan of Daniel Craig becoming Bond, but I dont think Roger Moore got a lot of support upon his first movie. He eventually grew into the part and became a very good Bond. My real issue is that the actor needs to fit the description of the movie (Casino Royal) and Craig just doesnt fit.But regardless of who becomes Bond, I am a fan of the series and will give the movie a chance. After that, well....we will see...

[marktmurphy]

Impossible for any of us to say whether Lampert is right or wrong (duh! Well, obviously!), but it does at least appear that she may be right.

I'm pretty sure she is right as Craig is the only viable candidate that I can see (although the age aspect is puzzling), but I don't think she knows she's right (!).

[Loomis]

Well, if the apparent final "final four" list that was revealed recently was legit, then I don't have much of a problem believing that Craig managed to beat out Cavill, Visnjic and Worthington.

Yes, Craig would be a huge risk, but the same is true of those other guys.

If the "final two" came down to Cavill and Craig, I'm sure it was a battle among The Powers That Be not only over which actor to choose but also over exactly how far to go with the Young(er) Bond "reboot" idea. If Craig was selected in the end, it would seem that CASINO ROYALE will be closer to a "regular" Bond flick than a full-on BOND BEGINS affair. Presumably, TPTB came to the decision that a reasonably business-as-usual Bond with Craig would be marginally less risky than 20-something Young Bond with Cavill.

Curious that there was that phantom announcement of Craig earlier this year (April, I think), which for a short while had many "serious" news outlets apparently convinced that he really was the new Bond. What was that all about, I wonder?

As Bruce Willis exclaims in DIE HARD 2: "How can the same **** happen to the same guy twice?"

But, hey, give it a day or so and I expect there'll be yet another major "Brosnan back after all?" rumour sweeping fandom.

[a_crook]

I really don't know what to think at this point... originally I hated the idea of Craig as Bond (and again I like Craig and love Layer Cake). I do think he's somewhat ugly and too short for the role. However I think he's a good actor and I don't think that the producers and Campbell would cast a guy that killed the role. So maybe they have a way of making him up, shooting it, and lighting him so that he could pull it off. I guess I agree with Pussfeller if it isn't going to be O'Lachlan or Owen at least the guy will be a credible actor and not just a pretty face. Only time will tell at this point.

I said this last week, but cheers to Pussfeller. I consistently agree with all your posts when I read them and always like what you have to say. Also think you live in a great town - my dad went to UVA!

[Alessandra]

News agencies and teletext services (notably reliable) here today say that producers are absolutely in complete DARKNESS on who to appoint. AND THAT THE FRONT RUNNERS ARE (AHEM AHEM): Jude Law, Hugh Grant and Di Caprio.

Alessandra, which reliable agencies or wire services have pegged those three? And whichever ones they are, are they reliable for entertainment news, or financial specıalısts?

If the former, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate their status as reliable!

not financial specıalısts... news wires which cover everything and are absolutely reliable like AGI, Adn Kronos etc..
MY EXAMPLE WAS TO PROVE THAT IF EVEN THEM, SERIOUS NEWS SERVICES WHICH COVER JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING, INCLUDING ENTERTAINMENT, AND ARE PROFESSIONALS, SAY STUFF LIKE THAT IT MEANS THAT NOBODY HAS A CLUE!!
i seriously believe that NOBODY has a clue for real. ah btw, Clive Owen was also included in the lot.
Trust me: if anyone had inside sources with a HINT on what is going on, it'd be on the main entertainment page of every big newspaper and newswire. it's not, and nobody has a clue.
Still, it may turn out that these people doorstepped Craig 24/7 and found out and had the biggest scoop ever! somehow I doubt it, but you never know.

[Atticus17F]

I'm still curious about how Campbell recently couldn't even remember Daniel Craig's name, whether accidently or on purpose.

There is also the rumor that they didn't get along.

I reckon it was all a big gee-up. Seriously, would any director - especially one who's now in the Bond business - cheerfully admit that he's never heard of Daniel Craig? It'd give one's credibility a bit of a knock, wouldn't it? I'm just not sure Martin Campbell is that out of touch.

Then, once Craig is announced, he and Campbell can giggle like nutters and thumb their noses at the fans and the press, "Ha-ha! Fooled yers!"

[marktmurphy]

MY EXAMPLE WAS TO PROVE THAT IF EVEN THEM, SERIOUS NEWS SERVICES WHICH COVER JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING, INCLUDING ENTERTAINMENT, AND ARE PROFESSIONALS, SAY STUFF LIKE THAT IT MEANS THAT NOBODY HAS A CLUE!!
i seriously believe that NOBODY has a clue for real. ah btw, Clive Owen was also included in the lot.
Trust me: if anyone had inside sources with a HINT on what is going on, it'd be on the main entertainment page of every big newspaper and newswire. it's not, and nobody has a clue.
Still, it may turn out that these people doorstepped Craig 24/7 and found out and had the biggest scoop ever! somehow I doubt it, but you never know.

Sorry, no. Campbell confirmed that the names that have been in the media have been tested. Daniel Craig is very hot in the running- it's hard to doubt that, and it's looking more likely. This article is based on little new information, I'd wager, but it's playing pretty safe. I'm afraid that your news channels are just plain way off the mark and unreliable in this instance.
Also, no rumours are on the main pages of any entertainment news sites. They stick to official facts; it's very rare that you'll see any leak make it there; especially not about this. The only big news will be an official announcement.

[doublenoughtspy]

I think he would make a better Max Zorin though.

[Tim007]

This picture hurts.

[Alessandra]

MY EXAMPLE WAS TO PROVE THAT IF EVEN THEM, SERIOUS NEWS SERVICES WHICH COVER JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING, INCLUDING ENTERTAINMENT, AND ARE PROFESSIONALS, SAY STUFF LIKE THAT IT MEANS THAT NOBODY HAS A CLUE!!
i seriously believe that NOBODY has a clue for real. ah btw, Clive Owen was also included in the lot.
Trust me: if anyone had inside sources with a HINT on what is going on, it'd be on the main entertainment page of every big newspaper and newswire. it's not, and nobody has a clue.
Still, it may turn out that these people doorstepped Craig 24/7 and found out and had the biggest scoop ever! somehow I doubt it, but you never know.

Sorry, no. Campbell confirmed that the names that have been in the media have been tested. Daniel Craig is very hot in the running- it's hard to doubt that, and it's looking more likely. This article is based on little new information, I'd wager, but it's playing pretty safe. I'm afraid that your news channels are just plain way off the mark and unreliable in this instance.

I repeat: I didn't quote them to say they were right! I quoted them to prove that if even serious and reliable news sources have no clue, than LESS serious news sources have even LESS clue!
a news article must be based on NEWS (sorry, this is my job so I know very well what I'm talking about).. otherwise it's just called SPECULATION.
which is what I define this story as. usual mere speculation. it has nothing more than that. and for the thousandth time: if there were ANY hints on the actor, every single big newspaper and newswire would have jumped on it and published it. as I said, they might as well have been doorstepping the guy and have the big scoop, never say never! but I doubt it.

[Alessandra]

This picture hurts.

Lol Tim
man. in Italian we would say this guy is "ORRENDO" in the photo.
Make up artists wanted.... AND VERY GOOD ONES INDEED, because to fit for Bond the guy will need a TOTAL makeover.
Actually.. why don't we send him to "extreme makeover" before doing Bond?? LOL

[marktmurphy]

I repeat: I didn't quote them to say they were right! I quoted them to prove that if even serious and reliable news sources have no clue, than LESS serious news sources have even LESS clue!
a news article must be based on NEWS (sorry, this is my job so I know very well what I'm talking about).. otherwise it's just called SPECULATION.

No, we have it from the horse's mouth that Craig et al were in consideration. That makes them more likely than Craig. What I'm saying is that your sources are way off- you can't judge what anybody does or does not know from a news agency that doesn't gather facts. Just because your agencies are wrong doesn't mean that others are too.

which is what I define this story as. usual mere speculation. it has nothing more than that. and for the thousandth time: if there were ANY hints on the actor, every single big newspaper and newswire would have jumped on it and published it.

Yes, it is speculation. But is is speculation based on fact. The facts are limited, but they are there- unlike those used by those agencies you quote. Just like them, you are seeing their reports and pulling massive conclusions based on nothing- there are hints as to who Bond will be; that's why we're discussing Craig again.
It's not true that every newswire would run something because one journo has found an unconfirmed fact. They will run it when it is official; as it is, many are running this now anyway, but with a note to say that it is rumour. As this is the umpteenth Bond story, and one of several featuring Craig, there's nothing new here, so it's understandable that few are running it. who wants to read the same news over and again? As you just said; 'a NEWS article must be based on NEWS'; and yet here you say that any hint or rumour of who Bond would be will make it to front pages? Do rumours = NEWS for you? That's poor journalism. You're contradicting yourself.

And can you please stop writing in capitals- it's very patronising and rude.

[Pussfeller]

Craig's looks are all over the board. There are lots of photos where he looks like Steve Martin with a broken nose, but there are also photos where he looks ruggedly handsome:






He'd be different, but I don't see why he'd be terrible. I actually think it's a brave, creative decision. And as I've said before, it doesn't matter whether the film is a success. For once, it would be nice to see EON not pander to the lowest common denominator.

[Alessandra]

I repeat: I didn't quote them to say they were right! I quoted them to prove that if even serious and reliable news sources have no clue, than LESS serious news sources have even LESS clue!
a news article must be based on NEWS (sorry, this is my job so I know very well what I'm talking about).. otherwise it's just called SPECULATION.

No, we have it from the horse's mouth that Craig et al were in consideration. That makes them more likely than Craig. What I'm saying is that your sources are way off- you can't judge what anybody does or does not know from a news agency that doesn't gather facts. Just because your agencies are wrong doesn't mean that others are too.

which is what I define this story as. usual mere speculation. it has nothing more than that. and for the thousandth time: if there were ANY hints on the actor, every single big newspaper and newswire would have jumped on it and published it.

Yes, it is speculation. But is is speculation based on fact. The facts are limited, but they are there- unlike those used by those agencies you quote. Just like them, you are seeing their reports and pulling massive conclusions based on nothing- there are hints as to who Bond will be; that's why we're discussing Craig again.
It's not true that every newswire would run something because one journo has found an unconfirmed fact. They will run it when it is official; as it is, many are running this now anyway, but with a note to say that it is rumour. As this is the umpteenth Bond story, and one of several featuring Craig, there's nothing new here, so it's understandable that few are running it. who wants to read the same news over and again? As you just said; 'a NEWS article must be based on NEWS'; and yet here you say that any hint or rumour of who Bond would be will make it to front pages? Do rumours = NEWS for you? That's poor journalism. You're contradicting yourself.

And can you please stop writing in capitals- it's very patronising and rude.

look. I don't seem to make myself clear. I'm saying the exact thing you're saying which is that there is NO news since nobody is reporting it in serious newspapers and agencies.
the HINT I'm talking about is "if there's a hint from reliable insider sources" everyone would report it. since such hint doesn't exist, nobody is reporting it!
we're saying the same thing!! which is, there's no news and this is just and only speculation. now speculation is not news and THAT is what I said... I said if there was any HINT to mean if there was FOR REAL A HINT and not speculation on who the guy is, everybody would run it.
I've never heard that writing in capitals is rude, just used to underline a concept, and everone does it. but anyway. sorry if you took offense.
and btw, I perfectly know what serious and not serious journalism is. (and you telling me that I would call patronizing, not the capital letters). I just don't seem to make myself clear with you. Excuse me if I can't, you seem to twist the things I say into the opposite of what I mean. so it's probably my fault in not being clear enough.

[spynovelfan]

Alessandra, I really don't follow you. Lampert is an entertainment journalist - just because two Italian news agencies haven't run the story doesn't mean she's wrong. She may well have an insider source, as you say. And if she does, and they've told her that Craig has signed, AGI, ADNKronos, Reuters, AP, Dow Jones, Bloomberg and everyone else woudn't have a clue. It's her source.

What's so hard to understand? You have sources, too.

The question is whether or not Lampert's source is sufficiently placed to know the real state of play. It's not anything that AGI would have a clue about - especially as it's an Italian news agency, and Lampert is a London-based entertainment journalist who thrives on sources.

The Mail isn't a serious source for breaking news - but I do think it's entertainment journalist is more likely to have the inside track on Bond casting than AGI, who will just have to wait for the press conference.

[Gobi-1]

I really hope Craig doesn't get it beecause I and regular filmgoers will have to warm up to him which isn't a good start. The person they cast as Bond should be easy to see as Bond like Clive Owen or Hugh Jackman. The last time audiences had to warm up to a new Bond, Timothy Dalton, they didn't. Yet Pierce Brosnan was accepted before he even shot a frame of film.

Since the actor is most likely going to be an unknown they should at least get one who looks like he could be Bond effortlessly. Not one who needs a makeover.

Edited by Gobi-1, 11 October 2005 - 01:44 PM.

[callmejames]

Craig's looks are all over the board. There are lots of photos where he looks like Steve Martin with a broken nose, but there are also photos where he looks ruggedly handsome:






He'd be different, but I don't see why he'd be terrible. I actually think it's a brave, creative decision. And as I've said before, it doesn't matter whether the film is a success. For once, it would be nice to see EON not pander to the lowest common denominator.

Take the shorter haircut in the top two photos and dye it the color of the bottom ones and I could see it.

That said, wake me when there's an official announcement.

[Alessandra]

Alessandra, I really don't follow you. Lampert is an entertainment journalist - just because two Italian news agencies haven't run the story doesn't mean she's wrong. She may well have an insider source, as you say. And if she does, and they've told her that Craig has signed, AGI, ADNKronos, Reuters, AP, Dow Jones, Bloomberg and everyone else woudn't have a clue. It's her source.

What's so hard to understand? You have sources, too.

The question is whether or not Lampert's source is sufficiently placed to know the real state of play. It's not anything that AGI would have a clue about - especially as it's an Italian news agency, and Lampert is a London-based entertainment journalist who thrives on sources.

ok I give up!!!
I just don't manage to make my point, my English is not good enough today!!! lol

I am not saying that because the italian agencies haven't written a story it's not true! I'm saying that because no italian, english, american or whatever worldwide serious newssource has published it, it's unlikely to be true!! because as well sourced as this lady may be, it's extremely unlikely that a reliable source on such a matter would talk, of all people, only to the Mail, without anyone else being aware of what is going on. STILL, I also said (see above) that this girl may as well have doorstepped Craig 24/7 and have the big scoop but somehow I doubt it. Why? Because there's no such thing as a big scoop made out of speculation, that's why!
a journalist with a scoop cites places, people, times, dates that nobody else has! and she isn't doing this in her story.

[spynovelfan]

AGI's piece:

'CINEMA: 7 CANDIDATI PER RUOLO DI 007, SCELTA IMMINENTE
(AGI) - Londra, 9 ott. - Agente 007 cercasi: dopo Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton e Pierce Brosnan, ora James Bond e' di nuovo alla ricerca di un attore che gli presti le sembianze. Non e' un' impresa facile. Paul Haggis, lo sceneggiatore che sta lavorando allo script di 'Casino Royale', il prossimo film di 007 (in uscita nell'autunno 2006), ha anticipato che si trattera' di un giovane. Un po' poco per individuare il candidato a un ruolo tra i piu' impegnativi della storia del cinema. Le ultime notizie danno in corsa Leonardo Di Caprio (che pero' non e' giudicato abbastanza 'british'), Cliwe Owen (vincente nei sondaggi che hanno coinvolto il pubblico), Hugh Grant, Jude Law, Daniel Craig ed Ewan McGregor. Outsider: Goran Visnjic. Una decisione sembra imminente.'

I'd ask whoever filed that for their source on Di Caprio, and then fire them when they had no answer. Sorry. Holding this up as an example that serious news sources think that EON doesn't know who to pick yet is absurd - this is a dreadful article with no reliabilty whatsoever.

[[dark]]

Couple of thoughts:

This tabloid journo's track record in the Brosnan firing seems to indicate she may be on the money again here.

On the other hand, maybe all these stories about Craig are a smokescreen to keep the real Bond #6 under wraps.

Back to the first hand, perhaps Campbell's "forgetfulness" over Craig's name during his recent press junket was all an act.

The timing seems right to make an announcement very soon, especially after Campbell's brief stint through Europe talking up Casino Royale.

[spynovelfan]

ok I give up!!!
I just don't manage to make my point, my English is not good enough today!!! lol

I am not saying that because the italian agencies haven't written a story it's not true! I'm saying that because no italian, english, american or whatever worldwide serious newssource has published it, it's unlikely to be true!! because as well sourced as this lady may be, it's extremely unlikely that a reliable source on such a matter would talk, of all people, only to the Mail, without anyone else being aware of what is going on. STILL, I also said (see above) that this girl may as well have doorstepped Craig 24/7 and have the big scoop but somehow I doubt it. Why? Because there's no such thing as a big scoop made out of speculation, that's why!
a journalist with a scoop cites places, people, times, dates that nobody else has! and she isn't doing this in her story.

Your English is fine - your argument sucks, though.

You're clearly not an entertainment journalist. This woman broke the story that Brosnan was out in February 2004. When did AGI report that? She didn't doorstep Brosnan - she has a source inside EON or Pinewood. Same here. She hasn't been round to Craig's house. She has a black book of sources who speak to her off the record - she's not going to cite places, people or times. Someone inside EON or Sony or Pinewood has phoned her and told her Craig is signed. They have done that because they are her source there, and they've done it before. They may be wrong, in which case her story is wrong. But they may be right. A leak of who will be the next Bond is far more likely to come to the entertainment writer on a British mass-circulation daily who has already broken a very big story on the same issue than it is to come to an Italian news agency whose London stringer thinks that Leo Di Caprio is on the shortlist!

Come on.