496 replies to this topic

[spynovelfan]

I also love the novel MOONRAKER, but can't see them 1. Redoing one of the titles they've already done. 2. Making a film set entirely in England. 3. Making a film about a plot to blow up London quite yet.

[spynovelfan]

I think one of the most interesting things about CR is how badly it's been received by many fans - despite being championed by them! A case of the grass is always greener/be careful what you wish for? A few years ago, loads of people were advocating a gritty adaptation of CR, with fewer gadgets, and so on. When they do it, though, a lot of people go 'Um, yeah. But there's not much plot, is there?'

I think the COLONEL SUN idea is similar. It sounds attractive, but would it make a great film? Say they announce it next week that that's Bond 22? How would they do it? Have to update it massively - Sun's plot is fairly small-scale, really, by film requirements. Only really one location. Sino-Soviet stuff a problem. Not a lot of action in it. And most of the plot ideas have been done - M kidnapped in TWINE, Bond working with a Soviet agent, etc. Even the name of Colonel Moon in DAD. I'm not sure what you could take from the original novel, or why it would be worth doing. They've cannibalised Fleming and the previous film and arguably the continuations already - DAD had several MOONRAKER elements in it. So they'll probably continue that route - and I don't see why they shouldn't. COLONEL SUN is a fanboy idea - the title will sound like a weak rip-off of DOCTOR NO to a general audience.

Just my two cents.

[marktmurphy]

I think one of the most interesting things about CR is how badly it's been received by many fans - despite being championed by them! A case of the grass is always greener/be careful what you wish for? A few years ago, loads of people were advocating a gritty adaptation of  CR, with fewer gadgets, and so on. When they do it, though, a lot of people go 'Um, yeah. But there's not much plot, is there?'

To be fair, that might be two different bunches of people.

[marktmurphy]

Much like Craig's potty mouth.  Tracking down previous interviews, he certainly loves to curse.

Unlike Brosnan? Even his latest soundbite is about how the producers are 'scared'. It's hardly the worst thing in the world.

[a_crook]

I just watched a good deal of the press conference and I must say, I don't feel better about Craig being Bond. I want to, I really do, but... First of all why can't he answer any questions? Esp. concerning "where he wants to take the role". I mean they announced he was Bond a year ago and he's been embroiled in this thing since then, and he doesn't know exactly what he wants to do? He is handling the single most recongnized fictonal character of our generation, and he's going to have to think about it. Then there is the whole chewing gum thing... come on. Maybe he has a whole grand scheme for this, I certainly hope so, because right now he's not instilling much confidence! I think with a little make-up, perhaps some beefing up, and the right lighting, he could be acceptable as Bond. But right now I just don't see that his heart is in it.

[Judo chop]

[First of all why can't he answer any questions? Esp. concerning "where he wants to take the role". I mean they announced he was Bond a year ago and he's been embroiled in this thing since then, and he doesn't know exactly what he wants to do?]

I was thinking about that too, a_crook. But really, what is the guy supposed to say? He did say that he has something of "a checklist" of ideas that he wants to use for the part. Aside from actually listing those off to the media, (and probably ruining any kind of refreshing surprise they might have brought with them) what was he supposed to say? One side of me was waiting in excitement to hear what his new ideas for the part were, but another part of me was fearful that he'd just say "I'm going to peel back the layers of the character" or "I'm going to show the disturbed and troubled man within". Gag. Better to say nothing at all IMO. His mention of checklist has me more excited than anything else I might imagine him saying.

So what if he isn't Mr. Interview? Ever heard Anthony Hopkins do an interview? Yawn. It makes you wonder what's really going on in the man's head, because he sure doesn't know how to explain it when asked.

Or maybe I'm not expecting enough? In all seriousness... I'd like to hear some examples of responses that would have satisfied a_crook, or any other Bond fan out there.

[quiller]

anybodt able to see what time piece craig is wearing in the official photo (walther n dinner suit)

Edited by quiller, 17 October 2005 - 04:07 PM.

[Donovan]

That press conference was painful to watch. In a 30-minute span, we maybe had two or three half-way intelligent questions. Still, you gather idiots from idiot papers and you'll get idiot questions.

Think about it: sports writers go a to sports-related press conference and they know their stuff.

Had I been there, and been handed the microphone ten times, I would have asked these questions:

-There were a few times in the past that the series tried to tone down the gadgets, and be a faithful adaptations to Ian Fleming's novels (after the likes of "Thunderball" and "You Only Live Twice"). I'm speaking specifically about "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and "Licence To Kill", and these films underperformed at the box office by Bond standards. The last film, "Die Another Day", grossed more than $400 million worldwide. What have you learned from the past attempts at making the gritty Bond films that you can apply to "Casino Royale" to try and get it to open like "Moonraker" and "Octopussy"?

-What was it about Pierce Brosnan's abilities as an actor that you lacked confidence in him to star in a serious type of film as opposed to making him drive around in an invisible car and para-surf in front of a green screen?

-Are there any specific marketing plans on the table to educate the greater public that this isn't another "Goldfinger" type of Bond film? In other words, there are some obvious elements that the general public expect in a Bond film, and you may be taking a risk in disappointing them.

-In the novel "Casino Royale" there is just the one female character in the story. In the film "The Living Daylights" there was basically just the one female character and this raised concerns at the time that Bond was losing his appetite. Do you have other female characters created for the new film?

-You say that this film represents Bond's first mission, yet you have talked about updating the story to suit modern times. James Bond was created and flourished during the height of the Cold War, which of course ended about 15 years ago. How are you planning on making a prequel that takes place today, supposedly AFTER Bond stole a cipher machine from the Soviet Union, defeated SPECTRE, and averted World War III a half a dozen times?

-Does SPECTRE have a chance of returning in future Bond films?

-You say that your writing team is busy working on the script for the 22nd Bond film. Is there a fast track to try and release films at a much quicker rate than we've seen lately? (One Bond film made since 2000). Are you going to try and capitalize on the year 2007? (read: two-double-o-seven)

-M is in the script, and it has been said that Judi Dench will return. Again, considering this a prequel, how would that work?

-If this film underperforms and it's established that audiences preferred the high concept Bond film, is there a plan to shift gears for the next film to satisfy the general public?

-While Daniel Craig is certainly a talented actor, when you compare him to his predecessors he sort of looks like the odd man out. You obviously had to consider physical appearance and characteristics in casting Bond. What do you see in him that makes you think, "this is James Bond."

[quiller]

That press conference was painful to watch. In a 30-minute span, we maybe had two or three half-way intelligent questions. Still, you gather idiots from idiot papers and you'll get idiot questions.

Think about it: sports writers go a to sports-related press conference and they know their stuff.

Had I been there, and been handed the microphone ten times, I would have asked these questions:

-There were a few times in the past that the series tried to tone down the gadgets, and be a faithful adaptations to Ian Fleming's novels (after the likes of "Thunderball" and "You Only Live Twice"). I'm speaking specifically about "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and "Licence To Kill", and these films underperformed at the box office by Bond standards. The last film, "Die Another Day", grossed more than $400 million worldwide. What have you learned from the past attempts at making the gritty Bond films that you can apply to "Casino Royale" to try and get it to open like "Moonraker" and "Octopussy"?



-What was it about Pierce Brosnan's abilities as an actor that you lacked confidence in him to star in a serious type of film as opposed to making him drive around in an invisible car and para-surf in front of a green screen?

-Are there any specific marketing plans on the table to educate the greater public that this isn't another "Goldfinger" type of Bond film? In other words, there are some obvious elements that the general public expect in a Bond film, and you may be taking a risk in disappointing them.

-In the novel "Casino Royale" there is just the one female character in the story. In the film "The Living Daylights" there was basically just the one female character and this raised concerns at the time that Bond was losing his appetite. Do you have other female characters created for the new film?

-You say that this film represents Bond's first mission, yet you have talked about updating the story to suit modern times. James Bond was created and flourished during the height of the Cold War, which of course ended about 15 years ago. How are you planning on making a prequel that takes place today, supposedly AFTER Bond stole a cipher machine from the Soviet Union, defeated SPECTRE, and averted World War III a half a dozen times?

-Does SPECTRE have a chance of returning in future Bond films?

-You say that your writing team is busy working on the script for the 22nd Bond film. Is there a fast track to try and release films at a much quicker rate than we've seen lately? (One Bond film made since 2000). Are you going to try and capitalize on the year 2007? (read: two-double-o-seven)

-M is in the script, and it has been said that Judi Dench will return. Again, considering this a prequel, how would that work?

-If this film underperforms and it's established that audiences preferred the high concept Bond film, is there a plan to shift gears for the next film to satisfy the general public?

-While Daniel Craig is certainly a talented actor, when you compare him to his predecessors he sort of looks like the odd man out. You obviously had to consider physical appearance and characteristics in casting Bond. What do you see in him that makes you think, "this is James Bond."

sure but what about the watch. jj. i hear all this back to basics stuff and all i can think is DALTONS BACK. NOT GOOD!!

Edited by quiller, 17 October 2005 - 04:25 PM.

[marktmurphy]

Esp. concerning "where he wants to take the role". I mean they announced he was Bond a year ago and he's been embroiled in this thing since then, and he doesn't know exactly what he wants to do?

But it isn't just up to him, and whether he and Campbell have had a good proper discussion about his character is not clear. It may just be one of many undecided things.

[MrMoneypenny]

Just watch the whole press conference and laughed my head off towards the end when a journalist asked: "Is Bond going to be smoking in this film?" and Campbell replied: "No, too many children are going to see this movie, Bond is an iconic figure and is a role model, so no, he won't be smoking." The journalist's reply was brilliant: "He's still going to shoot people isn't he?"

[Bondfan007]

I do like the casting of Craig....Just dye your hair please

[Xenia's Ferrari]

so this is our new james bond. i am not familiar with him so i do not know how to judge him. i am glad they have chosen someone after so long of wondering who who who.

[JimmyBond]

I like the fact that he looks so totally different from Pierce Brosnan. Too many people were afraid we were just going to get Pierce Mark II

[FelixLeiter]

Thanks for welcome, silhouette man. nice to feel at home.

As for Craig's appearance, yes, he certainly would have to dye the hair. he says no, but then again, and no offense here to anyone, but Pierce Brosnan said until the very end that he was coming back for Casino Royale. I was fond of the Bond that Brosnan, so please, don't get me wrong. My point is simply that what is said in Bondland and what is actually done can be two very different things. Craig will look however the producers would like for him to look. This you can trust more than anything.

On another note, I see that a few people have responded to my earlier post about trying the books again. I have seen mixed reviews. I will say, for my part, that if Casino Royale goes well, I would not be terribly surprised to see Live and Let Die as Bond 22. Of course, people that make the movies act upon what they think America will want to see. That in mind, those of us in support of such a course of action must make our voices heard. If enough of the Bond audience wants Live and Let Die, then producers will make sure that happens. The count starts here.

I welcome all responses, pros and cons

I eagerly await your opinions.

Yours Truly, the thin, grinning Texan,
Felix Leiter

[Pussfeller]

Welcome, Felix.

[Vodka Martino]

I think he's an excellent left-field choice. Seems very close to the Bond of the books (certainly the height and build are correct). Craig somehow looks like he's stepped out of the 1960s, and I think they're going for that raw kind of sexuality Connery had. Craig could certainly play a suave roguish killer. Controlled and deadly. I really hope the movie lives up to his promise.

Red, you hit the nail right on the head ( I hate it when I rhyme). Craig does have a certain '60s-ness about him. And like Connery, he has a certain look that doesn't look like he's just stepped out of a menswear catalogue. Man, I'm looking forward to this film!

Vodka Martino

[Carver]

My views probably echo those of others on here, and what I'm going to say has probably already been said. Still, I haven't been on here for a while so forgive me . To be honest, I'm open minded about this whole decision. In fact, I'm still undecided. My first thought when they announced it, and when I saw Craig's picture on the front of The Mirror (in the shop I might add, I don't read trash like that) was 'No way'. No way could this man play the suave, sophisticated, tall, dark and handsome secret agent that we've known and loved over the past 23 years. This slightly shorter, blond northener is so far away from the original (and who many people think the best) Bond, Sir Sean Connery. My image of Bond has to be of Connery or Brosnan. In my opinion, these two had it all and I really can't establish my favourite when asked, these two just have it all-the sophistication, the grit, the good looks and the actin quality. These men are Bond-original and modern. Lazenby simply wasn't ready/good enough for the role, and Moore and Dalton weren't the finished articles. Moore had all the smoothness and charm, and Dalton had the grit. Both of them were missing certain aspects of who Bond is. My first thoughts of the Bond that Daniel Craig will play is the gritty, Dalton-like Bond. His looks show this, as I can't imagine him bring able to charm the ladies with a click of fingers, as I believe Connery, Moore and Brosnan could. I've yet to see Craig act, which is why I'm buying Layer Cake after I've finished this post.
However, despite my first thoughts, I'm starting to warm to Craig. Maybe it's because I feel sorry for him. Speedboats aren't exactly thrilling for everyone, and he's been blasted from all angles by the media for not looking the part and for not saying anything. Jeez, the man's just won perhaps the biggest male film role in history, of course he's going to be nervous! He obviously doesn't know how he's going to portray Bond yet, as he hasn't sat down with the producers and director to sort it all out, but Campbell has said that it'll be a young, rough diamond Bond, so I'm not expecting him to be much like the 3 suave actors I've already mentioned. I'm open minded because I've yet to see him act, and so I can't judge him on how he is going to play Bond (if that makes any sense). To be fair, there have been Bond's who have been criticised before. Brosnan, despite being seen be many as the best, wasn't favoured because Bond had been in limbo for 6 years, and the series was considered dead. Connery was condemned by Fleming himself for being "uncouth", Lazenby for not being an actor, Moore for not looking like Connery and Dalton for also not being up to standard. Let's give the man a chance, he is obviously thought highly of otherwise he wouldn't have been chosen for the role.
Overall, despite not witnessing much of Craig's acting, I'm exciting that we're seeing a whole new Bond next year

[SecretAgentFan]

I like the fact that he looks so totally different from Pierce Brosnan. Too many people were afraid we were just going to get Pierce Mark II

So true! Imagine the criticm if EON had introduced someone like Brosnan. "THEY SCREW IT UP", "THEY PLAY IT SAFE", "THEY DON`T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING", "THEY ARE TOO SCARED OF CASTING SOMEONE LIKE DANIEL CRAIG"...

And if they had chosen Hugh Jackman: "THEY PLAY IT SAFE", "WILL HE TAPDANCE WITH THE VILLAIN?", "NEW BOND CAN SING HIS OWN THEME SONG NOW", "WILL WOLVERINE-BOND NOW HAVE LONGER SIDEBURNS", "MUTANT BOND SINGS TO A DIFFERENT TUNE", "THEY ARE TOO SCARED OF CASTING SOMEONE LIKE DANIEL CRAIG"...

Or Clive Owen: "THEY PLAY IT SAFE", "HOW BORING, SUCH AN OBVIOUS CHOICE", "HE SEEMED SO NOT INTERESTED DURING THE PRESS CONFERENCE", "HE

[Monsieur B]

Wow, who would have thought that Daniel Craig would actually win the Bond race? If one of us actually managed to build a time machine and went back in time a few months and told us that Craig would become Bond, we would call them a blashphemer, track them down and have them burned at the stake on a count of heresy.














Or just call them crazy and not do something so outlandish and ridiculous. Whichever you prefer.

[zencat]

Just watch the whole press conference and laughed my head off towards the end when a journalist asked: "Is Bond going to be smoking in this film?" and Campbell replied: "No, too many children are going to see this movie, Bond is an iconic figure and is a role model, so no, he won't be smoking."  The journalist's reply was brilliant: "He's still going to shoot people isn't he?"

LOL. I didn't hear that part. That was a good one.

[stromberg]

....
Still, I haven't been on here for a while so forgive me
....

Wow, haven't seen you here for quite a while.

Welcome back!

(and do stick around)

[Carver]

Wow, haven't seen you here for quite a while.

Welcome back!

(and do stick around)

Cheers mate, yeah I probably will be sticking round, I've missed the place. Just give me a while to get used to it again, it's changed since I was here last.

[zencat]

Yes, welcome back, Carver.

[Trevelyan_Moneypenny]

[quote name='killkenny kid' date='16 October 2005 - 21:25']
Much like Craig's potty mouth. Tracking down previous interviews, he certainly loves to curse.

[/quote]
You lead me to my last gripe. So, Danny boy likes to curse. And maybe he likes the ladies. That's great. But, it sounds like a bad boy to me. But that is why Colin Farrell was rejected. Eric Bana lacked good looks. Ewan McGregor was too short. Hugh Jackman lacked masculiinity. I guess they missed X-Men 1&2. Here where it gets dicey. Brosnan is too old. But Danny has a old look to his face. It wasn't about the money with Brosnan. But, they sign Daneil at a lowball number. Then they want an adult Bond movie. But, they target the young video game market. Double talk to me. Now I got it all out. On with CR.

[/quote]

Couldn't have put it better myself. I guess we are going to have to wait and see what happens with CR.

[Panther]

Well, I think he cuts it. Yes, he was obviously nervous at the press conference - who wouldn't be, when you've just heard that you've accepted an iconic role and your whole life is going to be changed forever? And then you're immediately confronted by some idiot woman asking about your private life. But just because he didn't give any intelligent answers to questions, doesn't mean that he can't act. Bond films are hardly Mike Leigh-style improvs. I think he looks great - yes, the hair has to go dark - and he'll probably do a great job.

From what Cambell and Wilson said, it sounds as if it's going to be an interesting and more Fleming-like film - though I wish they would bite the bullet and set it in the Cold War 50s; Russians are much more interesting foes than terrorists. I hope they reconsider about Q and Moneypenny - the latter especially - and cast someone intelligent and black-haired as Vesper.

Thanks CBn - just joined and thoroughly enjoying the drama of it.

[Q'ute]

if you're still not happy about Mr Craig taking over...



click here
http://img201.images...allpaper8bv.jpg

[Four Aces]

I support the selection. It should not be someone "pretty", and hopefully this one doesn't run like a girl

4A

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

Brilliant.....too bad nobody's picked up on our idea to have Deal With It in huge letters under his pic on the front page...

Oh well...

Nice job Q'ute.

[TheTemplar]

See this image I did to see Daniel Craig in a Connery/Moore pose!
Craig as Bond

He looks great!