207 replies to this topic

[Emma]

I'm glad you agree you're a casual fan who does not really know much about the character of Bond (other than the few films you may have occasionally seen part of - well, let's face it, watching them all would be so...[i]fan-ish


Er pardon me? I guess you missed my post above where I mentioned that I have followed Bond for 26 years. I have watched all 'official' films at least once. I haven't read or finished reading any of the Flemming novels because frankly I find them boring. Though I have read several of the film retrospectives

If this makes me a 'casual' fan as opposed to a 'true' Bond fan (which I presume you are) then so be it.


It's just that when repeatedly posting factually inaccurate statements in support of a fundamentally flawed argument (i.e. you don't like the actor as Bond therefore the producers have got it wrong) on a fan site, a little bit of knowledge would be useful.

I think you've been misinterpreting my arguments because I made no such assertion. My point is that Daniel Craig is completely wrong for Bond because he has none of the qualities that have gone into playing Bond.

Unless of course the five previous actors who played the part were completely wrong.




And to keep coming back at people trying to make out that their knowledge of subject is somehow strange, merely peacocks your (self-admitted) ignorance.


Your words not mine.

Edited by Emma, 26 February 2006 - 08:00 PM.

[Harmsway]

I think you've been misinterpreting my arguments because I made no such assertion. My point is that Daniel Craig is completely wrong for Bond because he has none of the qualities that have gone into playing Bond.

I quote myself:

He has no class, no poise and...

You never finished it, but I bet you were going to say "command" or "charisma" or "virility" or something else. Well, I just can't disagree with you more on that point, and it's foundational for why we disagree.

Firstly, on "class". Define "class," please. Because, while Bond has a taste for the high life and an elegance of style (which I think Craig's Bond seems to embody quite well), Bond is not a classy individual in the behavioral sense. Frankly, he's arrogant, sometimes vulgar, and isn't afraid to have people hate him. He doesn't really give a damn about what other people think about him. I think Craig fits the bill quite nicely on the elegance of style side of things, though (see this picture). Even when he's in the "shabby" clothing, he's still looking pretty stylish. And on the arrogant side of James Bond, I think he'll do *wonderfully* (see MUNICH).

Secondly, on poise. Poise is defined as composure. I think Craig holds himself quite well. I don't know why you'd even attack him on this point. At least he's not doing the fake "Brosnan Bond walk" (you know the one I'm talking about). Craig's holding himself with confidence and strength. He's ready to take on the world.

Now, on command. I think he's exuding buckets of command. He's just determined and ready to do what he needs to do in those sequences. Craig's Bond is in charge, and he's not going to be messed with. With the SAS background Craig's Bond has as well, I can also see him leading the team. Barking off orders and getting the mission done.

Virility, which is defined in the dictionary as "Masculine vigor; potency," seems to come from Craig in bucketloads. Craig just seems as masculine as can be, especially with that toned physique and determination. He looks alive and in the moment. Furthermore, I can just see Craig's Bond living it up and enjoying life - being the kind of guy who takes pleasure in ordering Dom Perignon '53, or buying Saville Row suits.

Charisma. This is a factor that's hard to pin down, because it is somewhat subjective. But I think Craig is *very* charismatic. When he's on the screen in LAYER CAKE and MUNICH, he's commanding the screen. He just dominates it. Hilary Saltzman (filmmaker and daughter of Harry Saltzman) felt the same way: "When I saw Munich...every time Craig was onscreen that's who you're watching. And I thought, 'My god, they've got something interesting there.'"

[Emma]

Emma, try waiting until you see the guy playing 007 before you say he CAN'T do it. I think that so many people are being really immature and arrogant here.

Really, please read what I post. I never said he 'can't play' James Bond. Hell anyone can play a part. I said he was innapropriate for the part. As for immature and arrogant part. I find nothing more arrogant not to mention snobby people who make assertions that we are going to finally get 'a real' or 'a good' Bond film because Craig is in it. When we haven't even seen the trailer yet. The film just started shooting for heavens sake!

[Andrew]

I think you've been misinterpreting my arguments because I made no such assertion. My point is that Daniel Craig is completely wrong for Bond because he has none of the qualities that have gone into playing Bond.

I quote myself:

He has no class, no poise and...

You never finished it, but I bet you were going to say "command" or "charisma" or "virility" or something else. Well, I just can't disagree with you more on that point, and it's foundational for why we disagree.

Firstly, on "class". Define "class," please. Because, while Bond has a taste for the high life and an elegance of style (which I think Craig's Bond seems to embody quite well), Bond is not a classy individual in the behavioral sense. Frankly, he's arrogant, sometimes vulgar, and isn't afraid to have people hate him. He doesn't really give a damn about what other people think about him. I think Craig fits the bill quite nicely on the elegance of style side of things, though (see this picture). Even when he's in the "shabby" clothing, he's still looking pretty stylish. And on the arrogant side of James Bond, I think he'll do *wonderfully* (see MUNICH).

Secondly, on poise. Poise is defined as composure. I think Craig holds himself quite well. I don't know why you'd even attack him on this point. At least he's not doing the fake "Brosnan Bond walk" (you know the one I'm talking about). Craig's holding himself with confidence and strength. He's ready to take on the world.

Now, on command. I think he's exuding buckets of command. He's just determined and ready to do what he needs to do in those sequences. Craig's Bond is in charge, and he's not going to be messed with. With the SAS background Craig's Bond has as well, I can also see him leading the team. Barking off orders and getting the mission done.

Virility, which is defined in the dictionary as "Masculine vigor; potency," seems to come from Craig in bucketloads. Craig just seems as masculine as can be, especially with that toned physique and determination. He looks alive and in the moment. Furthermore, I can just see Craig's Bond living it up and enjoying life - being the kind of guy who takes pleasure in ordering Dom Perignon '53, or buying Saville Row suits.

Charisma. This is a factor that's hard to pin down, because it is somewhat subjective. But I think Craig is *very* charismatic. When he's on the screen in LAYER CAKE and MUNICH, he's commanding the screen. He just dominates it. Hilary Saltzman (filmmaker and daughter of Harry Saltzman) felt the same way: "When I saw Munich...every time Craig was onscreen that's who you're watching. And I thought, 'My god, they've got something interesting there.'"

It's a shame that this wonderful post keeps getting ignored...

[kneelbeforezod]

Emma, try waiting until you see the guy playing 007 before you say he CAN'T do it. I think that so many people are being really immature and arrogant here.

Really, please read what I post. I never said he 'can't play' James Bond. Hell anyone can play a part. I said he was innapropriate for the part. As for immature and arrogant part. I find nothing more arrogant not to mention snobby people who make assertions that we are going to finally get 'a real' or 'a good' Bond film because Craig is in it. When we haven't even seen the trailer yet. The film just started shooting for heavens sake!

Well... I think you could forgive people from getting the impression from your posts that Craig can't play Bond.

Most people here are adopting a wait and see attitude I think, but are optimistic because Craig is a serious actor with range and presence. I was watching World Is Not Enough earlier and I can't get over how lightweight Brosnan seems. Partly the film's fault of course.

[Leon]

Emma, try waiting until you see the guy playing 007 before you say he CAN'T do it. I think that so many people are being really immature and arrogant here.

Really, please read what I post. I never said he 'can't play' James Bond. Hell anyone can play a part. I said he was innapropriate for the part. As for immature and arrogant part. I find nothing more arrogant not to mention snobby people who make assertions that we are going to finally get 'a real' or 'a good' Bond film because Craig is in it. When we haven't even seen the trailer yet. The film just started shooting for heavens sake!

That was my point, you are saying he is un-able to play Bond well...YOU DON'T KNOW THAT until you see the film. That is arrogance. Don't be so bloody minded. How can you sit there like the expert on Daniel Craig's potential and spout off what he can and can't do? Put a lid on it until you can watch him and then judge his performance, like I will do. I am looking foreward to a new Bond and HOPING he will be good.

[00-FAN008]

I wish Craig wouldn't wear his button shirt with the one button in the middle pinned together. Makes him look as if he is about to burst.

Otherwise, he looks alright in the role. I can't really make a judgement, though, until I see a trailer.

[Loomis]

....snobby people who make assertions that we are going to finally get 'a real' or 'a good' Bond film because Craig is in it. When we haven't even seen the trailer yet. The film just started shooting for heavens sake!

You have a point, but I just find it more encouraging for people to predict excellent Bond work from Craig based on his roles in films like ARCHANGEL (note: I'm not being predictable and mentioning better-known stuff he's been in - my point being that many of Craig's supporters have seen more than just LAYER CAKE and MUNICH, and aren't just going "Oh, cool, he's in that trendy Brit gangster flick, so he has to be a good choice for Bond"), or to at least keep an open mind, than to write him off.

What's wrong with a bit of optimism? Hope? Isn't that what being a fan is all about? I mean, I'm a fan of the Rocky series, and if you were to tell me that ROCKY BALBOA will probably stink and tank, I'd have to concede that there are reasons why that may be the case - Stallone's age and lack of current box office appeal, a ludicrous storyline, the awfulness of ROCKY V and the fact that that was a whopping 16 years ago, etc. However, as a fan, I prefer to focus on reasons why it could actually be a good film and do well - Sly's writing and directing ability (when he's on form), the feelgood factor of the storyline, the character's enduring appeal as a folk hero, the entertainment value of some of the earlier ROCKYs.... Why not do the same with CR? At least until it opens. Why not leave the slating of CASINO ROYALE and the pessimism about the franchise (which by your own logic would be every bit as baseless, surely, since the film has just started shooting) to the Harry Knowleses of this world?

[Seannery]

I've long argued for a bit of Bourne influence on the new Bond outing, and while it would be absurd to argue, based on these pics of Craig, that CR is going to be an out-and-out Bourne clone (although I'm sure a lot of anti-Craig Bond fans will be claiming just that), it would also be daft to suggest that the makers of CR haven't watched the Bournes and taken notes. And there's nothing wrong with that - the Bonds have always drawn inspiration from currently popular movies; it's how the series has kept its finger on the pulse and survived for more than 40 years. A ripoff of Bourne (or BATMAN BEGINS) - no thanks. But taking a leaf or two out of Bourne's or Batman's book - by all means, yes.

Bond never follows Bourne. They all follow Bond. Everything set up in 1962 is the standard for all the other things we've seen after. Bond is the leader. He always will be.

I agree with o07hmss totally. Bourne et al would not exist without Bond. And CR will not be a Bourne clone, it will just use the space in the market place opened up by Ludlum's hero.

Bond will still be witty, sexy, sophisticated, British, Zeitgeistian, global and the plot has wider implications than just Bourne's continuing journey. I love Bourne but the analogy is too simple. Sure, Bourne has been invoked by the Bond producers but also it has been distinguished. A lot of these images remind me far more of LTK than Bourne.

I have not read the spoilers or the script leaks (immense will power - if only I could apply that to chocolate cake!), but CR will concern global terrorism and money laundering with a set up for who and how Le Chiffre is. This wider tale is what will make Bond good.

Yes, and Craig wears good clothes well. The shot of him in a suit coming from the plane plus the initial tuxedo'd publicity shot plus Campbell's comments on what makes Bond Bond should dispel the T-shirt and jeans notion of Bond that has erroneously cropped up merely because of the leaked(?) pictures although Bond has worn tough clothing in the past. Connery practically lived in T-shirts in TB.

Craig looks very serious and focused in those shots. Good chance he's every bit the perfectionist that Dalton was on set. God, the crew will probably hate him already!

LOL. Everything about the Craig incarnation reminds me of the Dalton era. And that's what makes me really excited.

I'm with o07hmss and ACE here--the influence of Bourne is overstated big time, Loomis. CR may be more gritty and realistic which doesn't really doesn't mean Bourne--Bourne didn't invent those qualities and in fact Bond has done this in the past itself. Bourne is in Bond's wake and not vice versa. That is simply a fact.

[Loomis]

I'm with o07hmss and ACE here--the influence of Bourne is overstated big time, Loomis. CR may be more gritty and realistic which doesn't really doesn't mean Bourne

BUT do we know that, Seannery? You're probably right - and I hope you are, actually (yes, I'd like a bit of Bourne influence, just a bit, but no, I don't want CR to be a Bourne clone) - but for all we know the film may indeed be a total Bourne ripoff. We won't know how much influence is in there until November, obviously. May be just a bit (or none), but may be rather more than a bit.

Bourne didn't invent those qualities and in fact Bond has done this in the past itself.

I know.

Bourne is in Bond's wake and not vice versa. That is simply a fact.

But when have I ever said otherwise? Of course Bond came first, and Ludlum's character almost certainly owes his existence to Fleming. Sheesh, it's as though I'm claiming that the Bourne series somehow created 007.

[Quartermaster007]

What pictures? I don't see any.

[Seannery]

I'm with o07hmss and ACE here--the influence of Bourne is overstated big time, Loomis. CR may be more gritty and realistic which doesn't really doesn't mean Bourne

BUT do we know that, Seannery? You're probably right - and I hope you are, actually (yes, I'd like a bit of Bourne influence, just a bit, but no, I don't want CR to be a Bourne clone) - but for all we know the film may indeed be a total Bourne ripoff. We won't know how much influence is in there until November, obviously. May be just a bit (or none), but may be rather more than a bit.

Bourne didn't invent those qualities and in fact Bond has done this in the past itself.

I know.

Bourne is in Bond's wake and not vice versa. That is simply a fact.

But when have I ever said otherwise? Of course Bond came first, and Ludlum's character almost certainly owes his existence to Fleming. Sheesh, it's as though I'm claiming that the Bourne series somehow created 007.

Well I guess anything is possible but Campbell and even Craig has said we will still have the traditional Bond elements--thankfully.

[Harmsway]

Well I guess anything is possible but Campbell and even Craig has said we will still have the traditional Bond elements--thankfully.

And the script reviews seem to indicate the same thing. I think we're going to get a very Bondian and extravagant CASINO ROYALE, just with a little grittier vibe than we've had in a while.

[kneelbeforezod]

God I wish they would come up with a trailer so we would all have something concrete to talk about!

[00-FAN008]

Exactly; they need a trailer straightaway. Either that or an interview/preview with Daniel Craig talking about the role while they play clips of some of the stunts that he's doing for the movie.

[Seannery]

Let me come to the defense of Emma quickly--to me ANY opinion of Craig is valid on forums such as these. We all are prejudging in way. If you disagree with her(which I do partially) it's not a valid argument to say that you can't decide and have an opinion on him until you see CR. Granted when we see CR opinions may change but for now we ALL have early opinions.

We all have an opinion on him before CR comes out. I tell you what--if they had picked "Goran V." I would have definitely been on the negative side beforehand. We all project from what we see of an actor beforehand to analyze if we think they will work in a role.

So if one disagrees with Emma it's certainly valid to forcefully knock her points BUT not to just say you can't have a negative opinion before you see CR. That would effectively end all views that are anything less than positive--that wouldn't be realistic and would be rather dull. And again we are all projecting and judging beforehand. To be a fan is not the same as being a cheerleader. Okay--end of mini-rant.

[zencat]

What pictures? I don't see any.

For now, go to: http://www.007magazine.co.uk/news.htm

[Seannery]

I'm wondering if some of these pictures are from his "SAS period.".

[Leon]

I'm wondering if some of these pictures are from his "SAS period.".

That isn't in the script apparently. He was a Royal Navy Commander who did a stint in special forces. It's just his background briefly mentioned, you don't see it. You do see his first assassination jobs which earned him his Double O number however, but those pictures are from the chase scene in madagascar, he is undercover in the slums and has to dress like that so he doesn't stand out.

[Seannery]

I'm wondering if some of these pictures are from his "SAS period.".

That isn't in the script apparently. He was a Royal Navy Commander who did a stint in special forces. It's just his background briefly mentioned, you don't see it. You do see his first assassination jobs which earned him his Double O number however, but those pictures are from the chase scene in madagascar, he is undercover in the slums and has to dress like that so he doesn't stand out.

Thanks.

[Leon]

No probs dude. I am sick and tired however of all the people, especially on mi6.co.uk, who are screaming about him being SAS...saying that means he isn't Navy, which is . You have to have been in the regular military before you join special forces and why do they think they had a big Royal Navy press conference??

[Seannery]

No probs dude. I am sick and tired however of all the people, especially on mi6.co.uk, who are screaming about him being SAS...saying that means he isn't Navy, which is . You have to have been in the regular military before you join special forces and why do they think they had a big Royal Navy press conference??

I see your point--to me the SAS issue is largely irrelevent. There may be some things to complain about(or maybe not) but that isn't one of them.

[Loomis]

I'm wondering if some of these pictures are from his "SAS period.".

That isn't in the script apparently. He was a Royal Navy Commander who did a stint in special forces. It's just his background briefly mentioned, you don't see it. You do see his first assassination jobs which earned him his Double O number however, but those pictures are from the chase scene in madagascar, he is undercover in the slums and has to dress like that so he doesn't stand out.

Thanks.

For Bond's SAS period, see Craig's balaclava-wearing assassination mission in LAYER CAKE.

I'm surprised (for some reason) that the script seems to dive into Bond's MI6 period pretty quickly. I'm also disappointed (again, "for some reason" - I know it ain't exactly Fleming's Bond) that Bond will have only done "a stint" as opposed to having been a "proper" SAS person. Just when I get used to the ballsiness of such a major change in the character's background, it turns out it isn't there. Similarly, while it's a ludicrous move in so many ways, I think I'd now be disappointed if it turned out that CASINO ROYALE wasn't, after all, going to be a first mission reboot with Dench as M. But perhaps there's still time to bring in the codename theory.

[Carver]

Firstly, on "class". Define "class," please. Because, while Bond has a taste for the high life and an elegance of style (which I think Craig's Bond seems to embody quite well), Bond is not a classy individual in the behavioral sense. Frankly, he's arrogant, sometimes vulgar, and isn't afraid to have people hate him. He doesn't really give a damn about what other people think about him. I think Craig fits the bill quite nicely on the elegance of style side of things, though (see this picture). Even when he's in the "shabby" clothing, he's still looking pretty stylish. And on the arrogant side of James Bond, I think he'll do *wonderfully* see MUNICH).

Spot on there. That's how I've always seen Bond, and why I think Craig will be able to play the character very well. I believe that he can execute that balance between class and arrogance. In my opinion, only 2 men have performed Bond with both of those aspects, and that's Connery and Dalton (no, I'm not comparing Craig to them... yet ). Moore and Brosnan, whilst both being good Bond's in their own way, were displayed Bond's classier side more than his darker side. Harmsway- you really have got it spot on there mate, I think that's exactly how Fleming wants Bond to be.

If forward comb-over floats your boat. To each his own, I guess.

Comb-over? You think Craig's hair is a comb-over? Well, if we're going to have a go at Craig for his hairstyle, let's remember the styles Moore and Dalton sported eh? Moore's was coifed to perfection, and Dalton just looked as if he'd woken up. Only Brosnan and Connery have displayed some hint of Bond's trademark "thick commer of black hair" over his right eyebrow, so let's not start talking about having a bad hair day just yet.

[Loomis]

Let me come to the defense of Emma quickly--to me ANY opinion of Craig is valid on forums such as these.

Agreed.

We all are prejudging in way.

Agreed.

I doubt anyone wants this to be either a totally pro-Craig site, or a totally anti-Craig site, because such a site would have no value. Go to Craignowaycanplaybond.com or somewhere if you want that sort of thing. And it's always interesting to read opposing views. It's all good.

You're right about "we're all prejudging", but I don't see what's wrong with having a default setting of optimism rather than pessimism. That said, that's just me. There's no such thing as what a fan Ought To Do in order to be a fan. I respect Emma's views and enjoy her posts because she's at least seen Craig in various things and noted his good qualities as an actor (e.g. her posts on MUNICH). She's obviously thought about the issue and isn't just bashing the guy for the sake of it.

Oh, and all the Bonds had horrible hairstyles at various points in their films.

[Leon]

You have to have been in a regular branch of the military before you can join special forces, Bond will still be an ex-Royal Navy Commander. As for it only being a STINT officers are only allowed to do something like a three (?) year service in special forces.

It's actually closer to what Bond did according to Fleming - he was a part of a special branch covert ops team in Naval Intelligence during WWII. Tasks which today SAS and SBS undertake. (the first SAS teams in WWII were not the same as today).

This was based on Ian Fleming's job in the war, he planned operations and trained commandos in "30 Assault Unit" under Naval Intelligence. They were nicknamed "Ian's Red Indians" and carried out covert operations and intelligence gathered was reported back to the mysterious "Room 39" of the Admiralty.

Ian Fleming always longed to actually go on missions, particularly in occupied France, but was too important and was not allowed. He gave James Bond the job he always wanted.

The Special Air Service work closely with the Secret Intelligence Service (coined MI6 with the public).

Edited by Leon, 26 February 2006 - 10:48 PM.

[Harmsway]

I'm surprised (for some reason) that the script seems to dive into Bond's MI6 period pretty quickly. I'm also disappointed (again, "for some reason" - I know it ain't exactly Fleming's Bond) that Bond will have only done "a stint" as opposed to having been a "proper" SAS person. Just when I get used to the ballsiness of such a major change in the character's background, it turns out it isn't there.

Well, I think the term length in the SAS is a period of 3 years, anyhow. I don't believe there's such a thing as a "proper" SAS person.

[Leon]

Three years for an officer Harmsway (see my last post above ^), a squaddie can finish their career in special forces...IF they pass the devilishly grueling and punishing selection process of course.

Edited by Leon, 26 February 2006 - 10:54 PM.

[Emma]

Emma, try waiting until you see the guy playing 007 before you say he CAN'T do it. I think that so many people are being really immature and arrogant here.

Really, please read what I post. I never said he 'can't play' James Bond. Hell anyone can play a part. I said he was innapropriate for the part. As for immature and arrogant part. I find nothing more arrogant not to mention snobby people who make assertions that we are going to finally get 'a real' or 'a good' Bond film because Craig is in it. When we haven't even seen the trailer yet. The film just started shooting for heavens sake!

That was my point, you are saying he is un-able to play Bond well...YOU DON'T KNOW THAT until you see the film. That is arrogance. Don't be so bloody minded. How can you sit there like the expert on Daniel Craig's potential and spout off what he can and can't do? Put a lid on it until you can watch him and then judge his performance, like I will do. I am looking foreward to a new Bond and HOPING he will be good.

No I didn't. Those are your words not mine. I have never said that he can't play Bond I said he was innapropriate for the role. Anyone can play a part. I am sure that he can play Bond. Jack Nicholson can play Bond. It doesn't mean that he is right for the part.

One of the reasons I joined this board as opposed to other JB sites, because it wasn't as insular and devoid of elitism (ie. Sean Connery is the best Bond ever and everthing following is trash). All opinions were welcome. Sadly this board has become a Daniel Craig love in. Where anyone who disagrees with his being cast or suitability is called names. I don't mind people running to the defense of their favourite actor, but name calling and condescension is a bit too much.

@Loomis (since your settings doesn't allow for PM).

Thanks for the kind words. I was actually pleased to read that your favourite Bond film was TMWTGG.

Edited by Emma, 27 February 2006 - 12:56 AM.

[Harmsway]

I don't mind people running to the defense of their favourite actor, but name calling and condescension is a bit too much.

Definitely agreed.