56 replies to this topic

[Carver]

Dalton II?

Wow, that's really scary. Craig really does look like Dalton here, I'm still having trouble working out if it's him or Tim...

[Mister Asterix]

Here's the Bond that could've been...

http://www.bmwworld....e/8959_1024.jpg

Stay on topic please.

[freemo]

Strange question, I know, but:

In other words, that Craig will be, for want of a better word, wasted. Due to a requirement to play a reasonably audience-friendly, "middle-of-the-road" 007 (taking him into Broz territory), instead of being encouraged to really put his own spin on the character;

I think the fact that Craig was cast in the the first place is enough to suggest that this won't be the case.

I really think Daniel Craig is going to be Daniel Craig's Bond, a unique interpretation. Why does it have to be a rehash of one or more of the previous fellows? There's still room for a new take on the role. Only been done 5 times before, and numbers #2 and #5 didn't bring a whole lot new, so when you think about there's only really been 3 distinct interpretations of the role. Might be closer to Dalton than any of the others, but I'm not expecting "Dalton II".

[dinovelvet]

Dalton II?

Wow, that's really scary. Craig really does look like Dalton here, I'm still having trouble working out if it's him or Tim...

LOL the resemblance is uncanny. Have Dalton and Craig ever been spotted in the same room? Hmm...

[Quartermaster007]

Here's the Bond that could've been...

http://www.bmwworld....e/8959_1024.jpg

Is that relevant to the topic?

Hopefully he will be close to Dalton's Bond, considering he's my second fav.

[Blue07]

Dalton II?

Too funny for words

If only Dalton's Bond ever had that much hair.

[Agent 76]

Dalton II?

Too funny for words

If only Dalton's Bond ever had that much hair.

lol.

that Craig image resembles(not sure if the word is well written) Dalton, in a way.

[Chicago103]

No, Daniel Craig will have his own unique portrayal of Bond and I think those who are fans of Fleming's novels will be very satisfied and I think the hardcore fans will be thrilled. I predict we will see a very hard edged tough Bond, but one that still can give us the wit that makes Bond Bond. Casino Royale is the perfect movie for him introduce himself as James Bond in IMO.

[Number 6]

Craig will bring his own flavor to the role...with Connery references IMO...

Dalton II?

Wow, that's really scary. Craig really does look like Dalton here, I'm still having trouble working out if it's him or Tim...

LOL!!!

[Skudor]

I think Craig is more likely to make his own mark as Bond than Brosnan. Dalton was already different, and Craig's style is probably going to be closer to his than any other Bonds. As pointed out already, Craig's biggest advantage is the concept of the new movie - the first time in decades that they've been able to film an actual Fleming novel and the whole reboot (which is about more than just timelines and continuity - it's about style as well). He'll make his mark as a fairly distinct sort of Bond.

If Brosnan was a mix of Connery and Moore (with a touch of Lazenby's good looks) then I think Craig would be more of a Connery-Dalton mix - suave and charismatic, but with a strong edge and serious acting talent. A pretty damn strong mix!

I'm actually moving towards a dangerous zone - from thinking that Craig was a good choice, but likely to be rejected by the public at large (i.e. Dalton mark 2), to actually thinking that he might be a great success. Setting myself up for great dissappointment.

[Loomis]

I'm actually moving towards a dangerous zone - from thinking that Craig was a good choice, but likely to be rejected by the public at large (i.e. Dalton mark 2), to actually thinking that he might be a great success. Setting myself up for great dissappointment.

I've thought for a while that Craig is "likely to be rejected by the public at large (i.e. Dalton mark 2)", but, actually, hang on, why would he be rejected, exactly?

After all, Craig is already "a great success", is he not? Now, by no means am I saying he's a huge box office star, and, yes, I'm sure he's unknown in most households, but, still, he's the highly-acclaimed and (perhaps more importantly) ultra-hip star of LAYER CAKE and MUNICH (please, no one bother to point out pedantically that Eric Bana is actually billed first in MUNICH, 'cause I've just done so already ). His position in the industry and his recognition factor among audiences are WAY higher than was the case for Dalton just prior to THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. I honestly don't believe that Sony and Eon could have chosen a hotter property. Owen is so last year; Jackman so several years ago; Henry Cavill so five years from now; Adrian Paul, erm, moving on swiftly.... (sorry, Seannery and others ).

What I'm saying is that Craig is already popular and successful, so combine him with something that is also popular and successful (Bond), and you're sure to have something that's, erm, popular and successful. No?

[Emma]

Not 'tall. Craig will be Daniel Craig's 007. The look he has already strays from the formula...I don't see him playing a Bond we've seen before. After Munich I'm very enthused. ......He'll be more threatening than Brosnan and that's a good thing. And he'll look like a guy who could be a secret agent. Casino can't get here sooner.

I hope so! For Craig to try and mimic or immitate what came before him would be to invite ridicule. He's much more rough around the edges like Russell Crowe and Jason Statham. More like working class guy who got entre into the upper classes, but who yet can't leave his working/lower self behind.

To trot out a well used cliche. Daniel Craig should 'just be himself'. Please do not try and try to be someone else!

[Emma]

I'm actually moving towards a dangerous zone - from thinking that Craig was a good choice, but likely to be rejected by the public at large (i.e. Dalton mark 2), to actually thinking that he might be a great success. Setting myself up for great dissappointment.

I've thought for a while that Craig is "likely to be rejected by the public at large (i.e. Dalton mark 2)", but, actually, hang on, why would he be rejected, exactly?

After all, Craig is already "a great success", is he not? Now, by no means am I saying he's a huge box office star, and, yes, I'm sure he's unknown in most households, but, still, he's the highly-acclaimed and (perhaps more importantly) ultra-hip star of LAYER CAKE and MUNICH (please, no one bother to point out pedantically that Eric Bana is actually billed first in MUNICH, 'cause I've just done so already ). His position in the industry and his recognition factor among audiences are WAY higher than was the case for Dalton just prior to THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. I honestly don't believe that Sony and Eon could have chosen a hotter property. Owen is so last year; Jackman so several years ago; Henry Cavill so five years from now; Adrian Paul, erm, moving on swiftly.... (sorry, Seannery and others ).

What I'm saying is that Craig is already popular and successful, so combine him with something that is also popular and successful (Bond), and you're sure to have something that's, erm, popular and successful. No?

Why would he be rejected by the public at large? Several reasons he's not a conventionally handsome man (they already chased 99% of the female viewing audience with this choice), he's too stiff and I don't see how you define 'charismatic' but he doesn't have it as far as I am concerned. And really he comes across as churlish and sourly. He looks nothing like Bond---or to be more specific like any of the actors whom the general public is used to seeing as Bond. He usurped a public favourite Pierce Brosnan.

When I heard the name Daniel Craig, two pieces came to mind, The boyfriend in Tomb Raider and the Assasin in Elizabeth. Most people don't know Layer Cake--it's basically an art film. You can site all the examples of what a great actor is and the films he has appeared in. And I do think that he was the best thing in Munich. But in all honesty he doesn't have public appeal. Look at the actors and the films recently who have appealed to the general audience. The new sweetheart on the public stage is Jake Gyllenhaal. Does Craig look like him?

I have nothing against Daniel Craig. The man is a father to his daughter, he's masculine and despite having a mouth like a sailor seems to be decent guy. And I am certain that Bond will open big on the first weekend. But I just don't see him warming the general public. Sixteen year old video playing boys and hard core Ian Flemming enthusiasts--yes. But the general public no.

[K1Bond007]

[quote name='Mister Asterix' post='504777' date='17 January 2006 - 10:16']
[mra]Don

[Loomis]

they already chased 99% of the female viewing audience with this choice

With respect, how do you know this? Craig may not be your idea of a decent leading man/Bond, but do you speak for all women? It's quite obvious that Craig has his share of female admirers (go to the IMDb forums or somewhere).... heck, there are even women here on CBn who are enthusiastic about the idea of Craig as Bond. Also, no way would he have been cast not just once but several times in high profile romantic roles alongside some of the world's biggest A-list actresses in big budget films if he were as repulsive as you seem to be suggesting.

However, having said that, it is most definitely true that Craig is not a (visually speaking) conventional or safe choice for Bond. Do we really want that, though? (Again.)

And really he comes across as churlish and sourly.

Wasn't Connery a bit like that with the media at times? As for Craig's supposed lack of enthusiasm for the Bond role, I get the feeling that many Bond fans almost think he ought to be going full-tilt to promote the series and CASINO ROYALE even before this, the first week of shooting, is done. The film won't even be out until November! Plenty of time to woo the media and thereby the public. I think what many fans don't appreciate (and I'm guilty of this myself in my fanboyish enthusiasm for Bond and anticipation of CR) is that it's really very, very early days indeed yet.

I don't see how you define 'charismatic'

Me neither, but I know it when I see it. I think if (and this is a big "if") Craig is given the right material, co-stars, direction, etc., he'll shine as Bond and "charisma" will naturally follow. He won't be able to do it on his own, of course (obviously, the same would be true if we had the 32-year-old Connery), but I frankly have my doubts more about the likes of Campbell and P&W than about Craig.

He usurped a public favourite Pierce Brosnan.

True, and that could be a problem (but more a long-term one than a short-term one, since the novelty factor of a new star will draw a lot of cinemagoers to CR).

Most people don't know Layer Cake--it's basically an art film.

Hmmm.... not in the UK - here, it's pretty mainstream (by which I mean, most people who pay any kind of attention to films have probably at least heard of it). Still, I've never said that Craig has established mass appeal, but c'mon: he's the best thing in the new Spielberg movie, and the star of the hippest British film in many years, and the upcoming co-star of Nicole Kidman - surely, in theory at least, these things speak of an encouragingly high profile for the new Bond?

Sixteen year old video playing boys and hard core Ian Flemming enthusiasts--yes. But the general public no.

Well, we'll see. It would be as daft to proclaim to CR a flop at this point as it would be to proclaim it a smash - it's months away. But I believe that, as far as the general public is concerned, the quality of the film matters far more than the actor playing Bond. Look at Dalton, for instance: should we say he was accepted by the public because of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, or rejected by the public because of LICENCE TO KILL? Seems more accurate to say that the public liked the film TLD but didn't care for the film LTK. Obviously, I'm not suggesting that anyone could be cast as Bond and people would still flock to it as long as they made a sufficiently good and entertaining movie, but I do think the popularity of Bond rests on the lead actor to a lesser degree than it may seem.

Overall, though, I think the odds of a successful CR are very good indeed.

[Publius]

It doesn't bother me too much. I mean, how "individual" can Bond actors be with their performances, broadly speaking, the more that have tried their hand at the role? After a while, you kind of run out of sweeping personalities: the suave ladies' man, the macho fighter, the gentlemanly humorist, the cold killer, the introspective everyman, etc. Sounds almost like something I'd find in the diary of a teenage girl, to be brutally honest.

The "individuality" future Bonds will have (and this includes Craig) will come about in the nuances, including the blending of personalities. He may be mostly Dalton, but a little funnier and a bit more cocky, but perhaps with a streak of immaturity to boot and thereby balance him out. To some extent, the case can be made that this mixture of styles approach began already with Brosnan, and quite possibly even with Lazenby, who wasn't too different from Connery. Hell, pull Connery in the direction away from Lazenby, and you might get Dalton. Strip Lazenby of his machismo, throw in the class of a seasoned vet to replace some of his boyishness, and maybe you have Moore.

So, nah, I don't really worry too much that Craig will be "too much like" anyone. He'll be his own man enough, and I predict it'll be a hell of a man to showcase.

[Emma]

With respect, how do you know this? Craig may not be your idea of a decent leading man/Bond, but do you speak for all women? It's quite obvious that Craig has his share of female admirers (go to the IMDb forums or somewhere).... heck, there are even women here on CBn who are enthusiastic about the idea of Craig as Bond.

I know this due to the reaction I have saw from various women just after he was chosen. It veered from incredulous to repulsive sort of a "Why did they choose him?" Of course Craig has his female supporters. But I assure you that this is not a vast amount of female viewers. Again I say look at the big name Hollywood leading men. And you'll come up with Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Jake Gyllenhaal. You and I will probably agree on their lack of talent. But there is no argument on the box office draw of these sorts of men. And sadly Daniel Craig does not fall into that camp. Six years ago when Mission Impossible 2 came out many in a circle of frieds could not fathom why MI-2 (which I consider to be a horrible film) was making so much money and beating Gladiator at the box office. And it was therorized because Tom Cruise is better looking and more importantly not as threatening looking as Russell Crowe.


Also, no way would he have been cast not just once but several times in high profile romantic roles alongside some of the world's biggest A-list actresses in big budget films if he were as repulsive as you seem to be suggesting.




And yes you are right, that he has been cast alongside some high profile A list actressess Angelina Jolie, Gwenyth Paltrow. However have you noticed that he has never over shadowed any of them? And isn't it why no one wanted Angelina Jolie as Vesper because she would clearly over shadow Craig?


Wasn't Connery a bit like that with the media at times? As for Craig's supposed lack of enthusiasm for the Bond role, I get the feeling that many Bond fans almost think he ought to be going full-tilt to promote the series and CASINO ROYALE even before this, the first week of shooting, is done. The film won't even be out until November! Plenty of time to woo the media and thereby the public. I think what many fans don't appreciate (and I'm guilty of this myself in my fanboyish enthusiasm for Bond and anticipation of CR) is that it's really very, very early days indeed yet

No, that's not what I meant. I watched Craig as he came in on the boat for the press confrence, and it's more than clear that he's is a bit shy. If he's not a 'showman' or 'self-promorter' I can live with it. I am just stating that he looks a bit off putting, you know like the kind of person with a 'don't bother me' personality. And that can be a turn off to some people. He doesn't bother me. But it will be to some people. Look I am not posting any of this to bash Daniel Craig. He is not my ideal of James Bond. But I can live with it. I liked him in Munich. And I am not, completely adverse to 'rough looking men'. I am a fan after all of Mickey Rourke and Russell Crowe (I think that Craig easily falls into this camp). I would rather watch a man who is not so aethetically appealing with a spine and some smarts, over a vapid pretty boy any day.



Me neither, but I know it when I see it. I think if (and this is a big "if") Craig is given the right material, co-stars, direction, etc., he'll shine as Bond and "charisma" will naturally follow. He won't be able to do it on his own, of course (obviously, the same would be true if we had the 32-year-old Connery), but I frankly have my doubts more about the likes of Campbell and P&W than about Craig

I absolutely agree. I was skeptical of Craig until I saw him in Munich. And thought that if he plays Bond like that, then he can pull it off. However Martin Campbell is a completely different story. Campbell isn't Christopher Nolan. He strikes me as pompous and arrogant man who would be unwilling to change tactics if something is not working. For some reasons I don't think he will play to Craig's strong suits, as opposed as to trying to force Craig to fit into his vision of Bond. But I may be surprised.

Well, we'll see. It would be as daft to proclaim to CR a flop at this point as it would be to proclaim it a smash - it's months away. But I believe that, as far as the general public is concerned, the quality of the film matters far more than the actor playing Bond. Look at Dalton, for instance: should we say he was accepted by the public because of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, or rejected by the public because of LICENCE TO KILL? Seems more accurate to say that the public liked the film TLD but didn't care for the film LTK. Obviously, I'm not suggesting that anyone could be cast as Bond and people would still flock to it as long as they made a sufficiently good and entertaining movie, but I do think the popularity of Bond rests on the lead actor to a lesser degree than it may seem.



In a world where the likes of Jim Carrey and Ben Affleck are considered box office draws. I would never predict that CR will be a flop. But from where I sit right now I truly think that CR will be accepted for what is actually on screen than due to the leading man. I also think that Craig will appeal to the target audience, young video playing males. The same audience who are responsible for the Transporter film getting a sequel.

[Loomis]

For some reasons I don't think he will play to Craig's strong suits, as opposed as to trying to force Craig to fit into his vision of Bond.

Yeah. Let's hope Craig is allowed to play to his strengths and put his own stamp on Bond, and that the filmmakers won't try to shoehorn him into an inappropriate (for Craig) interpretation of the role.

Those photos from the set do seem encouraging, though, in that they appear to show that Craig is being allowed his own look.

As for the game-playing teenage males thing, seriously, haven't they been the main audience for Bond (and the main target for its spinoffs, notably, erm, games) for years? We'd never have had an exquisitely sophisticated CASINO ROYALE under any circumstances, regardless of whether Sony and Eon had chosen Brosnan, Craig, Visnjic or whoever. But surely the brave casting of Craig and things like the bleak ending and final line from the novel indicate that they won't be completely pandering to the lowest common denominator this time round.

[jaguar007]

I hope so! For Craig to try and mimic or immitate what came before him would be to invite ridicule. He's much more rough around the edges like Russell Crowe and Jason Statham. More like working class guy who got entre into the upper classes, but who yet can't leave his working/lower self behind.

/quote]

"More like working class guy who got entre into the upper classes, but who yet can't leave his working/lower self behind." Actually kind of sounds like this Scottish bloke who played 007 over 40 years ago.

[Emma]

For some reasons I don't think he will play to Craig's strong suits, as opposed as to trying to force Craig to fit into his vision of Bond.

Yeah. Let's hope Craig is allowed to play to his strengths and put his own stamp on Bond, and that the filmmakers won't try to shoehorn him into an inappropriate (for Craig) interpretation of the role.

Those photos from the set do seem encouraging, though, in that they appear to show that Craig is being allowed his own look.

As for the game-playing teenage males thing, seriously, haven't they been the main audience for Bond (and the main target for its spinoffs, notably, erm, games) for years? We'd never have had an exquisitely sophisticated CASINO ROYALE under any circumstances, regardless of whether Sony and Eon had chosen Brosnan, Craig, Visnjic or whoever. But surely the brave casting of Craig and things like the bleak ending and final line from the novel indicate that they won't be completely pandering to the lowest common denominator this time round.

Actually don't take this as gospel on my part. But I have an article that says that part of the change in direction for the new Bond is to attract those young males.

Apparently the franchise is being held up by 'old men'. And the young video playing males think that James Bond that is something for their Dad's. And the reboot is to attract those young males. Which is why, if this is true, I found strange given that Daniel Craig looks almost older than Brosnan. However if Craig is going to be turned into a hero from a video game. I guess it would work.

I hope so! For Craig to try and mimic or immitate what came before him would be to invite ridicule. He's much more rough around the edges like Russell Crowe and Jason Statham. More like working class guy who got entre into the upper classes, but who yet can't leave his working/lower self behind.

/quote]

"More like working class guy who got entre into the upper classes, but who yet can't leave his working/lower self behind." Actually kind of sounds like this Scottish bloke who played 007 over 40 years ago.

LOL!! True. However Craig seems a bit more rough around the edges than Connery. But still he doesn't come across as a man who drags his knuckles on the ground.

[Loomis]

I remember that article. It was discussed here on CBn a while back. I think it mentioned that studio bosses were seriously considering Orlando Bloom as Bond in a bid to win back the supposedly lost teen crowd. I guess that was a big reason behind the auditioning of very young actors like Henry Cavill, but it looks as though sanity has prevailed - as you say (and I'd agree), Craig hardly looks like a spring chicken, even though he's only 37 (I think).

But - and I appreciate that it's far too early to tell, of course - I don't think that CASINO ROYALE looks as though it's going to be too dumbed down or too pitched at the mindless action/gaming crowd. It's not going to be 2 FAST 2 FURIOUS or xXx: STATE OF THE UNION. If anything, I think the danger is that it'll go too far in the opposite direction and actually be too light on action and too (for want of a better word) "literary" for mass acceptance (as well as too dark and generally too much of a departure from most people's idea of a lighthearted, entertaining, fun-for-all-the-family Bond film). LICENCE TO KILL with more airs and graces.

[jaguar007]

[
"More like working class guy who got entre into the upper classes, but who yet can't leave his working/lower self behind." Actually kind of sounds like this Scottish bloke who played 007 over 40 years ago.
[/quote]

LOL!! True. However Craig seems a bit more rough around the edges than Connery. But still he doesn't come across as a man who drags his knuckles on the ground.
[/quote]

But Connery was certainly rough around the edges before Terance Young "groomed" him to become 007.

[Harmsway]

With respect, how do you know this? Craig may not be your idea of a decent leading man/Bond, but do you speak for all women? It's quite obvious that Craig has his share of female admirers (go to the IMDb forums or somewhere).... heck, there are even women here on CBn who are enthusiastic about the idea of Craig as Bond.

I know this due to the reaction I have saw from various women just after he was chosen. It veered from incredulous to repulsive sort of a "Why did they choose him?" Of course Craig has his female supporters. But I assure you that this is not a vast amount of female viewers. Again I say look at the big name Hollywood leading men. And you'll come up with Brad Pitt, Tom Cruise, Jake Gyllenhaal. You and I will probably agree on their lack of talent. But there is no argument on the box office draw of these sorts of men. And sadly Daniel Craig does not fall into that camp. Six years ago when Mission Impossible 2 came out many in a circle of frieds could not fathom why MI-2 (which I consider to be a horrible film) was making so much money and beating Gladiator at the box office. And it was therorized because Tom Cruise is better looking and more importantly not as threatening looking as Russell Crowe.

Incidentally, every female I've met and talked to about Craig thinks he's quite handsome and will do fine in the part looks-wise. Most of them are just judging by photographs, too.

[medrecess]

I must say that now i am quite convinced of Mr DC's Bond potential.
I now feel he will propel the Bond series to a higher level.Also like he said that maybe he will ruin the series but he may do something to make the series last 30 years instead of 3.Also i feel the hero at the endof the day will be the strong script- an element lacking in the PB era (except GYE)

[Seannery]

We'll see.

[luciusgore]

I agree. Either he will blow everyone away as Bond, or we will see a much older Pierce Brosnan back for Bond 22.

[Qwerty]

Topics merged.