509 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Okay, I admit that it would be absurd to start triumphantly yelling "HE'S FLEMING'S BOND! HE'S THE NEW CONNERY! CASINO ROYALE WILL BE 100 TIMES BETTER THAN ALL THE OTHER FILMS PUT TOGETHER! HE'S THE BEST ACTOR IN THE WORLD!", and so on, but wouldn't it be just as daft to dismiss him out of hand?

I mean, a lot of intelligent people at Sony and Eon are prepared to put a lot of money behind this guy. They must think he has something going for him, surely? And maybe he has.

..Since when is Hollywood's judgment so peerless? The very demographic they have been trying to suck up to is passing on movies in droves. So what are doing instead? Hiring a late 30s actor -- and polarizing their base? Brilliant. The Evening Standard was polling the public at large, not so called fanboys, and over 70% say no. And Loomis -- the studio doesn't buy the tickets -- we do. And I for one wouldn't give them a dime for Craig. They are free to muck around, but I will not be led around by the nostrils by the people spinning in these threads.

Slaezenger, I don't disagree with all of your points, and I'm not saying that I think Sony and Eon have amazing judgement that can never be wrong.

I have posted my own reservations about Craig many times, questioned his looks, accused him of seeming 103, and so on and so forth. By no means do I think he's a surefire smash as Bond.

But I also think he has good qualities, and, on balance, I'd like to see him as 007. Had it been up to me, I'd have hired Owen, or, failing Owen, Jackman. Failing Jackman, I'd have begged Brosnan to return. But it wasn't up to me (unfortunately). Craig is what we're getting.

No, we don't have to just accept him and shut up, but at the same time why not give him a chance? Why not look for the good in him as well as the bad? Let's see what he's got to offer. And if CASINO ROYALE turns out to be a disaster, well, hey, it's not our millions at stake.

[Slaezenger]

whoa! I sense a little bit of disappointment with Craig here.
Well I've clearly stated what I think, and I won't go to the movies to see Craig either. So I'm with you on this.
but I still wonder why they'd choose him if there's zero hope.. can they be totally completely mad?? I hope not.

...Why? I suppose they think Craig looks like the new "reinvigorated" "reinvented" Bond who is dark, edgy and "emotional" in 21. They'll probably sign some Goth band to do the main title.

[Sam Fisher]

whoa! I sense a little bit of disappointment with Craig here.
Well I've clearly stated what I think, and I won't go to the movies to see Craig either. So I'm with you on this.
but I still wonder why they'd choose him if there's zero hope.. can they be totally completely mad?? I hope not.

...Why? I suppose they think Craig looks like the new "reinvigorated" "reinvented" Bond who is dark, edgy and "emotional" in 21. They'll probably sign some Goth band to do the main title.

I can already hear My Chemical Romance doing the theme song.

Or to pour salt on the gaping wound: Green Day will be performing the Bondian version of Wake Me Up When September Ends

Edited by Sam Fisher, 13 October 2005 - 04:51 PM.

[Slaezenger]

Slaezenger, I don't disagree with all of your points, and I'm not saying that I think Sony and Eon have amazing judgement that can never be wrong.

I have posted my own reservations about Craig many times, questioned his looks, accused him of seeming 103, and so on and so forth. By no means do I think he's a surefire smash as Bond.

But I also think he has good qualities, and, on balance, I'd like to see him as 007. Had it been up to me, I'd have hired Owen, or, failing Owen, Jackman. Failing Jackman, I'd have begged Brosnan to return. But it wasn't up to me (unfortunately). Craig is what we're getting.

No, we don't have to just accept him and shut up, but at the same time why not give him a chance? Why not look for the good in him as well as the bad? Let's see what he's got to offer. And if CASINO ROYALE turns out to be a disaster, well, hey, it's not our millions at stake.

...Sorry Loomis, bjut you are trying to have it both ways: You agree with everything I wrote, but you'd like to see Craig as 007. I have seen Craig, he is all wrong for Bond, and you can spend your money as you please, but I won't waste mine.

[Righty007]

This thread has a cool premise. Too bad it isn't original! The Pro-Craig Brigade is better.

[Slaezenger]

Or to pour salt on the gaping wound: Green Day will be performing the Bondian version of Wake Me Up When September Ends

..And don't forget the end title hit, "Da Bitch is Dead Now" by Slim Thug.

[Loomis]

...Sorry Loomis, bjut you are trying to have it both ways

Maybe. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Craig gets the role, I'll be 50% absolutely delighted and 50% extremely disappointed. Sounds stupid, perhaps, but that's the way I feel. But I won't write him off before I've seen CASINO ROYALE. Which could still be a good film, even with a "bad" Bond. Isn't the quality of the film the main thing?

Anyway, the decision is out of our hands, and, ultimately, audiences will give their verdict.

[pgram]

I respect your arguments, Loomis, but I don't see how a Bond film be good with a bad Bond. I 'm not suggesting here that Craig will be a bad Bond (I have suggested it many times, allready, in other posts). I just feel that 90% of a Bond film is Bond himself (surely, the rest 10% is enough to destroy a film, aka TND,TWINE,DAD).

[Slaezenger]

Maybe. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Craig gets the role, I'll be 50% absolutely delighted and 50% extremely disappointed. Sounds stupid, perhaps, but that's the way I feel. But I won't write him off before I've seen CASINO ROYALE. Which could still be a good film, even with a "bad" Bond. Isn't the quality of the film the main thing?

Anyway, the decision is out of our hands, and, ultimately, audiences will give their verdict.

..The decision remains in iur hands. We buy the tickets, and with 70% saying no to Craig in one poll, I'd be a little concerned at the studio, especially if this is the guy in the role for 3 films over, what, six years?

[WC]

I must say, this anti-Craig Brigade thread isn't quite anti enough. In the pro-Craig thread, no bitching about Craig is allowed. Yet here, some people seem to slightly border on defending him or giving him a chance. I thought that sort of talk is consigned to the other thread. That's what they'd say there if someone were to complain - direct them to this thread.

At least let's allow the title of this thread to live up to its name. A bit more negativity and anti-comments please?

[Kingdom Come]

Nice to see the anti-brigade is doing better business!!!! it would be even more successful if the moderators were to actually post what I had added to this thread!

[pgram]

The good thing about Craig, though, is that we won't have to worry whether he ages graciously.

[Bon-san]

let's allow the title of this thread to live up to its name. A bit more negativity and anti-comments please?

I don't care if the likes of Sienna Miller and Kate Moss were fawning all over him, he's hideous!

I'm envious of the little runt!

He's not worthy!

I haven't seen this film, I won't see this film, and I'll do everything in my power to subvert even the remotest possibility of it's artistic and commercial success!

[pgram]

Let's hope there are a lot of underwater sequences, so that he 'll have to wear a mask

[crheath]

[quote name='Alessandra' date='13 October 2005 - 07:53'][quote name='crheath' date='13 October 2005 - 15:40']For those of you who don't like the choice of Craig, could you email me the footage of his Bond screentest?

[pgram]

This is pushing the envelope film-making: the first film ever, where the stunt double will be better looking than the star himself. I can't help thinking about criticisms that in this scene or that they made it too obvious that it wasn't the stuntman!

Edited by pgram, 14 October 2005 - 12:14 AM.

[Sam Fisher]

I must say, this anti-Craig Brigade thread isn't quite anti enough. In the pro-Craig thread, no bitching about Craig is allowed. Yet here, some people seem to slightly border on defending him or giving him a chance. I thought that sort of talk is consigned to the other thread. That's what they'd say there if someone were to complain - direct them to this thread.

At least let's allow the title of this thread to live up to its name. A bit more negativity and anti-comments please?

I think we've become the Pacifist Craig Brigade

[WC]

Oh come now. Let's not water down our posts here. It's not like the pro-Craig brigade are getting any less enthusiastic. Here's not the place to debate about being anti-craig. Here's the place to give him a full lynching!

[pgram]

Come on, let's not be completely offensive. Let's give the man a shot.

Somewhere between the eyes, will do.

[Dalton's Wendy]

In case anyone would like to add more fuel to the bonfire, go to page 14 of the topic
"Daily Mail: Daniel Craig is Bond, According to the Mail",
and check out Post #396, and also click on the link of Post #409.

Now -- that's UGLY!

[Michigansoftball#1]

There's so much negativity on CBn these days.

The choice of the actor is such a minor thing. I mean a great actor (Sean Connery) cannot save a lousy film with a lousy script (Diamonds Are Forever), but a subpar actor (George Lazenby) can be in a far superior Bond movie.

You guys are acting like there has never been a change in actor before. Really I question your credentials as "Bond fans" if you are not even willing to give the new guy a chance. I've liked Bond movies by all the previous actors and (with the exception of Lazenby) been less crazy about other movies from all the previous actors.

Sure, if after you have seen Casino Royale and you didn't like it, then you can b*tch about it. But the film hasn't even been shot yet but somehow it appears people in this thread have already seen it -- pretty impressive feat I must say -- you should play the stock market with premonition qualities like that.

[Alessandra]

Or to pour salt on the gaping wound: Green Day will be performing the Bondian version of Wake Me Up When September Ends

..And don't forget the end title hit, "Da Bitch is Dead Now" by Slim Thug.

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!

[Marquis]

I've just watched 'Enduring love' (again) as my missus wanted to see the 'new James Bond in action'.It's a very impressive performance from Craig - he's clearly a very versatile actor and he has a great deal of charisma. As for his looks - i'm still far from convinced. The first thing that struck me when watching him in this film again were his teeth. His bottom row are small, grey and razorlike! He's certainly going to need quite a bit of work in that department just to divert attention away from them. The second thing that hits you is the shape of his head and his hairline. In the scenes where his hair's wet, his high/receeding hairline becomes very apparant and it really makes him look quite odd...and old! They might have to keep this Bond out of water.

With a bit of male grooming (getting his hair-cut right is absolutely essential), some Saville Row tailoring and the right make-up and lighting he will look a damned sight better than anything he's appeared in thus far. And i don't doubt for a minute we'll get an absolutely fantastic performance from the guy. Whether or not he'll actually look and feel like James Bond 007...well...that remains to be seen.

I do think this is a massive risk from E*N and it's a gamble that could come back and bite them hard in the . But i'm going to root for the guy...so officially put me in the pro-Craig camp.

Edited by Marquis, 13 October 2005 - 09:01 PM.

[Moore Not Less]

There's so much negativity on CBn these days.

The choice of the actor is such a minor thing. I mean a great actor (Sean Connery) cannot save a lousy film with a lousy script (Diamonds Are Forever), but a subpar actor (George Lazenby) can be in a far superior Bond movie.

You guys are acting like there has never been a change in actor before. Really I question your credentials as "Bond fans" if you are not even willing to give the new guy a chance. I've liked Bond movies by all the previous actors and (with the exception of Lazenby) been less crazy about other movies from all the previous actors.

Sure, if after you have seen Casino Royale and you didn't like it, then you can b*tch about it. But the film hasn't even been shot yet but somehow it appears people in this thread have already seen it -- pretty impressive feat I must say -- you should play the stock market with premonition qualities like that.

Daniel Craig certainly polarizes opinion amongst the fans. There seems to be virtually no middle ground, judging by what I have read here and over at AJB.

I was thinking earlier (assuming that he will be announced tomorrow as Bond #6)that he will be Eon's most controversial choice for Bond so far. Very deceptive of me, I thought.

But then I had another thought, what about Eon's choice of George Lazenby for OHMSS? He had barely acted at all, and he wasn't even British. He wasn't especially good looking either, more rugged. I can imagine that if the internet were around in 1969 that Lazenby would have received similar amounts (probably more) of criticism regarding his suitability for the role of Bond as Craig has now. Lazenby was succeeding Sean Connery and many fans at that time could/would not except anyone else as 007. It's different now, fans have got used to different actor's portraying Bond. And Craig can act.

Personally, I don't believe that Craig is suitable for James Bond. I see him more as a Bond villain. However, I am prepared to give him (and Eon) the benefit of the doubt, at least until I have seen Casino Royale. I would urge all those who believe that Craig is totally unsuitable to also give him the benefit of the doubt. By all means, make your criticisms known (within reason), but go and see Casino Royale. If Craig then turns out to be as unsuitable as you expected, you will be fully entitled to say "I told you so" and your criticisms will carry a lot more credibility than if you just plain refuse to see CR because Craig is 007.

Another thing, OHMSS is regarded by many fans as one of the best (if not the best) Bond films despite George Lazenby. In other words, they really like OHMSS even though they are not fans of Lazenby's Bond. So, even if Craig is a disappointment you may still get some enjoyment from CR. And just supposing Craig exceeds all your expectation's, what a bonus that would be.

Yes, give Eon and Craig the benefit of the doubt, at least until you have seen Casino Royale. That is what I would expect a loyal Bond fan to do.

[WC]

There's so much negativity on CBn these days.

The choice of the actor is such a minor thing. I mean a great actor (Sean Connery) cannot save a lousy film with a lousy script (Diamonds Are Forever), but a subpar actor (George Lazenby) can be in a far superior Bond movie.

You guys are acting like there has never been a change in actor before. Really I question your credentials as "Bond fans" if you are not even willing to give the new guy a chance. I've liked Bond movies by all the previous actors and (with the exception of Lazenby) been less crazy about other movies from all the previous actors.

Sure, if after you have seen Casino Royale and you didn't like it, then you can b*tch about it. But the film hasn't even been shot yet but somehow it appears people in this thread have already seen it -- pretty impressive feat I must say -- you should play the stock market with premonition qualities like that.

But this is what i'm saying. There aren't any similar posts in the pro-craig brigade thread saying "you haven't seen the film yet - wait until it's finished to praise him or be overjoyed." So why post them here? Especially if this is the thread specifically reserved for anti-craig posters? Why not let them post unashamedly without the need to debate? If you're pro-craig, or at least partial to him, why not go there?

Otherwise the pro-craig thread is allowed to praise the casting decision, but the anti-craig thread is where even the slightly pro-craig try to convince the anti-craig brigade they are wrong? That doesn't seem fair.

[WC]

I've just watched 'Enduring love' (again) as my missus wanted to see the 'new James Bond in action'.It's a very impressive performance from Craig - he's clearly a very versatile actor and he has a great deal of charisma. As for his looks - i'm still far from convinced. The first thing that struck me when watching him in this film again were his teeth. His bottom row are small, grey and razorlike! He's certainly going to need quite a bit of work in that department just to divert attention away from them. The second thing that hits you is the shape of his head and his hairline. In the scenes where his hair's wet, his high/receeding hairline becomes very apparant and it really makes him look quite odd...and old! They might have to keep this Bond out of water.

With a bit of male grooming (getting his hair-cut right is absolutely essential), some Saville Row tailoring and the right make-up and lighting he will look a damned sight better than anything he's appeared in thus far. And i don't doubt for a minute we'll get an absolutely fantastic performance from the guy. Whether or not he'll actually look and feel like James Bond 007...well...that remains to be seen.

I do think this is a massive risk from E*N and it's a gamble that could come back and bite them hard in the . But i'm going to root for the guy...so officially put me in the pro-Craig camp.

Then what are you doing in here? Since the anti-craig camp are directed away from that thread? Wouldn't it make more sense to post there?

[Alessandra]

let's allow the title of this thread to live up to its name. A bit more negativity and anti-comments please?

I don't care if the likes of Sienna Miller and Kate Moss were fawning all over him, he's hideous!

I'm envious of the little runt!

He's not worthy!

I haven't seen this film, I won't see this film, and I'll do everything in my power to subvert even the remotest possibility of it's artistic and commercial success!

Ok guys.. the previous posts and this and on and on.. I've got to tell you...
I am laughing SO loud that my bro next to me asked me what on earth was going on to make me laugh like that!!!!!
thank you.. thank you so much for making me end a HORRIBLE day with a warmhearted laugh.
there's nothing that helps more!!
baci a tutti

ps: Dalton Wendy and myself have expressed some other anti-opinions on Craig on the thread Wendy mentioned.. lol

pps: they're stripping us women of our dreams even. Once, at least we could dream gorgeous, sexy, classy, heroic and witty men existed by watching Bond.
now we get Daniel ordinary man Craig. I WANT MY DREAMS BACK!!! lol

[Alessandra]

Come on, let's not be completely offensive. Let's give the man a shot.

Somewhere between the eyes, will do.

ROFLMAO @ this and the previous one!! lol. I've already expressed my gratitude for making me laugh.
thank you dearest guys.

[Marquis]

I've just watched 'Enduring love' (again) as my missus wanted to see the 'new James Bond in action'.It's a very impressive performance from Craig - he's clearly a very versatile actor and he has a great deal of charisma. As for his looks - i'm still far from convinced. The first thing that struck me when watching him in this film again were his teeth. His bottom row are small, grey and razorlike! He's certainly going to need quite a bit of work in that department just to divert attention away from them. The second thing that hits you is the shape of his head and his hairline. In the scenes where his hair's wet, his high/receeding hairline becomes very apparant and it really makes him look quite odd...and old! They might have to keep this Bond out of water.

With a bit of male grooming (getting his hair-cut right is absolutely essential), some Saville Row tailoring and the right make-up and lighting he will look a damned sight better than anything he's appeared in thus far. And i don't doubt for a minute we'll get an absolutely fantastic performance from the guy. Whether or not he'll actually look and feel like James Bond 007...well...that remains to be seen.

I do think this is a massive risk from E*N and it's a gamble that could come back and bite them hard in the . But i'm going to root for the guy...so officially put me in the pro-Craig camp.

Then what are you doing in here? Since the anti-craig camp are directed away from that thread? Wouldn't it make more sense to post there?

I'll post where i bloody well please!

[Sam Fisher]

There's so much negativity on CBn these days.

The choice of the actor is such a minor thing. I mean a great actor (Sean Connery) cannot save a lousy film with a lousy script (Diamonds Are Forever), but a subpar actor (George Lazenby) can be in a far superior Bond movie.

You guys are acting like there has never been a change in actor before. Really I question your credentials as "Bond fans" if you are not even willing to give the new guy a chance. I've liked Bond movies by all the previous actors and (with the exception of Lazenby) been less crazy about other movies from all the previous actors.

Sure, if after you have seen Casino Royale and you didn't like it, then you can b*tch about it. But the film hasn't even been shot yet but somehow it appears people in this thread have already seen it -- pretty impressive feat I must say -- you should play the stock market with premonition qualities like that.

But this is what i'm saying. There aren't any similar posts in the pro-craig brigade thread saying "you haven't seen the film yet - wait until it's finished to praise him or be overjoyed." So why post them here? Especially if this is the thread specifically reserved for anti-craig posters? Why not let them post unashamedly without the need to debate? If you're pro-craig, or at least partial to him, why not go there?

Otherwise the pro-craig thread is allowed to praise the casting decision, but the anti-craig thread is where even the slightly pro-craig try to convince the anti-craig brigade they are wrong? That doesn't seem fair.

Thanks. We now have rule number 1: No recruiting.

That quip about giving Craig a shot beteween the eyes was great, keep them coming