130 replies to this topic

[Blue07]

From Craig's introductory interview at the first press conference, he rankled the press. He's blown numerous opportunities to get them on his side.

Very nice post, Kara, but how has Craig rankled the press, and what opportunities has he blown? I'm not trying to argue with you; I'm just curious.

Not one to side with DC easily I have to say the press business I think extends only to the fact of DC's relationships with tabloid trash like Kate Moss and Sienna Miller and the fact that an unconventional and controversial Bond is far more newsworthy than the casting of say Broz (born to be Bond ) was.

It's an easy story and fills up a few columns in their trashy tabloid rags.

[doublenoughtspy]

From Craig's introductory interview at the first press conference, he rankled the press. He's blown numerous opportunities to get them on his side.

Very nice post, Kara, but how has Craig rankled the press, and what opportunities has he blown? I'm not trying to argue with you; I'm just curious.

His performance at the press conference wasn't exactly stellar.

And then a few weeks later he talked about how he doesn't like guns. Regardless of his personal preferences, saying that he doesn't like guns when he has just been announced to play a role very associated with guns was probably not the wisest move.

I think Kara is right that Eon & Sony have done very little to counter the negative publicity - just a curt reply to the incorrect report about links to the innocent man killed by police in the London Underground being used in the CR script.

[Bill]

Kara Milovy:

Excellent point on all counts! However, I do not think "this controversial choice" will be the absolute end of the Bond films.

Daniel Craig is certainly fighting an uphill battle, with little or no support in the media. Granted, a lot is tabloid journalism at its worst, but when CNN (with whom I personally have problems with on the basis of political bias) into the act, given that it is a "respected" media outlet, there are definitely issues. I respect Pierce Brosnan, Roger Moore and the other Bond luminaries for saying good things in the press about Craig. However, I cannot remember when any of the previous Bonds ever had to be defended by anyone associated with the series. Roger Moore may have had a tough time at the beginning getting out of Sean Connery's shadow, but that seems to have come mostly from the reviewers of the films themselves, and not the press in general. (This may be off topic, but I have always been impressed with what a true class act that Roger Moore is, and am looking forward to the rerelease of the DVDs just for his commentary alone)

What will matter, as you said, Kara, is public acceptance. I remember the day that Craig was announced I went out to dinner with a friend, and brought the still photo of Craig released that day with me. My friend simply said that he did not look like Bond at all and instead had a sinister look to him. We showed the picture to the waitress who did not think he looked good in the photo, and for the female perspective, did not find him attractive. Since that day I have discussed Craig with many members of my family and friends, and not one person has thought his casting was a wise choice.

That acceptance will not be just regarding Craig, but whether or not the public will still see this as a James Bond film. Despite the postings in other threads on this site which hail the Bond Begins approach jettisoning all continuity as a bold start, it is doubtful that the average movie goer will think that. Most likely they will be puzzled, thinking that they had just seen Judi Dench in the last film, knowing that she had replaced someone else as M, so how the hell can she be there when Bond is just embarking on his initial assignment? Now, that alone may not matter in terms of overall box office, but I think it will. People expect to see an M in a certain context, look forward to Q giving him his gadgets and for a flirtation scene with Moneypenny. They will also expect Bond himself to behave a certain way and from what I have read so far, I do not think that will be happening.

As I said Kara, I do not think the failure of CR will end the series forever. Instead, should CR fail, I predict that:

1. Bond 22 will go into production almost immediately. Either they will bring back Pierce for whatever vast sum he will (justifiably at that point) command, with or without a public acknowledgement that mistakes have been made or simply a statement from Brosnan that "The past is behind us. Let's just get on with the job." Bronsnan will not criticize Craig in any way, and he will not get the full blame from EON or Sony/MGM--instead he will be thanked and just some vague statement that the approach was wrong. The entire Bond Begins nonsense will be scrapped--and Brosnan's presence will be enough without any other acknolwedgement that that is done. It may be another action adventure spectacle like DAD or a toned down thriller. Judi Dench will be back as M and John Cleese as Q and Samantha Bond or someone else as Moneypenny. This will probably be Brosnan's last peformance and will be made largely to ensure the viability of Bond continuing with another actor in Bond 23.

2. Bond 22 will go into production, again, almost immediately. No Brosnan but one of the other candidates as Bond--I saw The Pink Panther last week and would have absolutely no problem with Clive Owen as 007. Most likely another action spectacle. Again, Judi Dench and John Cleese, with a new Moneypenny. Absolutely no references to CR, and perhaps a continuity reference or two to the old films--maybe one to Tracy. Should the film succeed, the lead will be back as Bond in Bond 23.

3. A cooling off period for a few years--Bond will be back in some form on screen within ten years--but I would not dare to speculate in what manner at this point.

Bill

[marktmurphy]

His performance at the press conference wasn't exactly stellar.

And then a few weeks later he talked about how he doesn't like guns. Regardless of his personal preferences, saying that he doesn't like guns when he has just been announced to play a role very associated with guns was probably not the wisest move.

Hardly 'rankling' or 'blowing opportunites'. He was asked about guns- was he supposed to say he loves them and thinks they're just so neat? Can you guess what the headlines would be then?

I think Kara is right that Eon & Sony have done very little to counter the negative publicity - just a curt reply to the incorrect report about links to the innocent man killed by police in the London Underground being used in the CR script.

Are they supposed to say he's not afraid of boats and doesn't ask for loads of wet-wipes? That would just be prolonging the story and honoring it with a response it doesn't deserve.

[doublenoughtspy]

His performance at the press conference wasn't exactly stellar.

And then a few weeks later he talked about how he doesn't like guns. Regardless of his personal preferences, saying that he doesn't like guns when he has just been announced to play a role very associated with guns was probably not the wisest move.

Hardly 'rankling' or 'blowing opportunites'. He was asked about guns- was he supposed to say he loves them and thinks they're just so neat? Can you guess what the headlines would be then?

I think Kara is right that Eon & Sony have done very little to counter the negative publicity - just a curt reply to the incorrect report about links to the innocent man killed by police in the London Underground being used in the CR script.

Are they supposed to say he's not afraid of boats and doesn't ask for loads of wet-wipes? That would just be prolonging the story and honoring it with a response it doesn't deserve.

A no comment on the guns, like he did when asked about Moss, et al at the press conference might have sufficed.

Re: press. I am not suggesting that they respond to every negative report - that would be silly.

But as a point of reference, I have a number of press releases from Eon & United Artists during the filming of OHMSS - they had people working on the film whose job it was to write up bits about the filming and just put a positive spin on things.

While not all of them ran in newspapers, some did - and it was attempt to keep the production in a positive light.

I am not seeing any effort of the sort with CR.

[Fro]

There's little to be worried about at this point in time.

As others have said, if it's like this 2 months from the premiere, then you can start worrying. It's practically free advertising for the next Bond movie right now.

People will go see this movie if the reviews and trailer are good, regardless of how much Craig-bashing the UK tabloid media does.

[Kara Milovy]

From Craig's introductory interview at the first press conference, he rankled the press. He's blown numerous opportunities to get them on his side.

Very nice post, Kara, but how has Craig rankled the press, and what opportunities has he blown? I'm not trying to argue with you; I'm just curious.

They didn't like his evasive answers about Sienna Miller. They were upset that he was generally terse. He used foul language, which numerous media noted with disdain.

Since then, there have been quite a lot of interviews. Has he made them laugh? Has he gotten them on his side? Has he charmed them? Or do they come back and say, 'Gosh, this guy is talented and edgy, but I don't like him.'? It seems to be the latter.

Kara Milovy:

Excellent point on all counts! However, I do not think "this controversial choice" will be the absolute end of the Bond films.

I agree. It's the Broccoli family business and they have the money to cover a loser. But it could be the end of Craig.

I haven't been a Craig fan (for this role) and am still not. At this point, I want the film to succeed and I'll swallow and hope that Craig surprises me.

But I am a Dalton film and Eon is making exactly the same mistakes they made with Dalton. Dalton, like Craig, doesn't like the press and isn't comfortable with a lot of interviews. Eon didn't shield him or help him or spin him, they just let him twist slowly, slowly in the wind. They left the enormous public hostility go unanswered. They did nothing to make him more charming to the public. And with Dalton we had a guy who looked like Bond. Dalton's first film was a success but the second film had budget slashes and script problems and Eon basically let it fail, and fired the star.

With Bond 22 already being written, I'll bet they'll do the same thing. Crank out another film without really supporting it while searching for a replacement.

[TheBritishEnd]

And with Dalton we had a guy who looked like Bond. Dalton's first film was a success but the second film had budget slashes and script problems and Eon basically let it fail, and fired the star.

Many excellent points, Kara.

Dalton also had a film that looked like a Bond film. (ie. It still had Q lab and a script that was still loosely based on the traditional Roger Moore formula.)

[Frankie]

The other part is that Daniel Craig is and always was a risky choice for Bond--especially for the mainstream. He doesn't fit in with the suave, tall darkish cinematic Bond mold that audiences have expected. THIS MAKES HIM AN EASIER TARGET. And the media(at least some of it and then the rest often follows) likes an easy target. You can make the case he's a very talented but miscast actor--though maybe he will suprise a lot of people and really become Bond. He's a big risk and even some of his strong supporters have admitted this--now we have to see if Craig can overcome this and hit one out of the ball park. I'm not sure if he can do it or not. I'm still wait and see though all this mainstream negativity makes me somewhat more pessimistic about box office.

The problem is the fans having been Bondless(!) for a long stretch will flock to the theatres. CR will sell a lot of tickets before fans realize they have an imposter as 007. This will encourage EON into thinking they made the right choice and retaining DC for yet another Bond movie. Which means between Brosnan's Bond and the time we hopefully see a suitable Bond actor it'll be a good 7 years. WE ARE STUCK WITH THIS FOR A LONG TIME FOLKS!

[dinovelvet]

On the other hand, apart from Jackman and Owen, who, exactly, should Eon have cast in place of Craig in order to guarantee a CASINO ROYALE production free from fan and media sniping? Cavill would have been bashed as "Baby Bond", Visnjic derided for being Croatian, Alex O'Lachlan written off as a Lazenby clone.... plenty of faults would have been picked in whoever they'd chosen. It just so happens that people are sneering at "James Blonde", but in an alternate universe they're roasting Julian McMahon for being an Aussie and not as good-looking as Brosnan. What should Eon have done to ensure plain sailing for the series? Paid through the nose for Brosnan, Jackman or Owen (all of whom would have been doing it purely or chiefly for the money, and probably without being willing to commit to Bond for more than one film at a time)? Scrapped it?

I think, assuming that Jackman and Owen were not interested, that Julian McMahon would have been more acceptable to the general public. He's got enough TV and movie exposure, he's got "the sexy", he's comfortable doing publicity, and he just looks more traditionally Bond. Yes there would be bitching from some corners, the name Lazenby would be brought up by some, but I think he'd just be an easier sell than Craig, to the public at large. I remember one rumor back in Feb of last year (I know it was specifically Feb. because I'd just seen The Jacket) that said the two frontrunners were Craig and McMahon. Wonder if that was all bull or not, given that we found out that Craig deliberated for about a year...

[Onlooker]

I think, assuming that Jackman and Owen were not interested, that Julian McMahon would have been more acceptable to the general public. He's got enough TV and movie exposure, he's got "the sexy", he's comfortable doing publicity, and he just looks more traditionally Bond.

This is exactly right. In addition, McMahon really wanted the role and made no secret of it. I think part of Craig's problem is its hard for people to take him seriously in the role when he himself doesn't seem too sure that he really wants it.

As I've said before, whatever their relative merits as actors, this issue would not have arisen with McMahon. He would have come into that press conference and had the journalists eating out of his hand in five minutes. I know this because he does it over and over again. He even went into a Comics Con meeting (a roomful of comics fanatics who knew 10 time more than he did about his character of Dr. Doom) and had them eating out of his hand and scattering favourable write-ups all over the web. A little goodwill goes a long way.

[bondrocks14]

If Daniel Craig ends up being a flop it won't be because of his acting abilities, it will simply be because he doesn't look like the "film" Bonds. Now, notice I said film. A lot of you say that Craig does look the part and he compliments Fleming's Bond. But we're not talking about literary Bond. The media isn't talking about literary Bond. To be successful in film Bond, you have to be film Bond...not literary Bond. Granted, Craig might have the secret agent grittiness and realism that the literary character had. But, honestly, he doesn't have the film Bond look and mannerism.

[Flash1087]

If Daniel Craig ends up being a flop it won't be because of his acting abilities, it will simply be because he doesn't look like the "film" Bonds. Now, notice I said film. A lot of you say that Craig does look the part and he compliments Fleming's Bond. But we're not talking about literary Bond. The media isn't talking about literary Bond. To be successful in film Bond, you have to be film Bond...not literary Bond. Granted, Craig might have the secret agent grittiness and realism that the literary character had. But, honestly, he doesn't have the film Bond look and mannerism.

You just summed up my fears about Craig better than I ever could've. I love the more movie-esq Bond, the smoother gentleman stylings of Brosnan and Moore, and I also love the gritty, cold, angry Fleming Bond, but the two are a bit mutually exclusive and ne'r the two shall meet. People at this point may just be too used to the Movie Bond.

[jaguar007]

I think one of the biggest factors to all the Craig bashing is THE INTERNET. When Pierce was cast, the internet was young and most people did not have it and use it as a daily means, much as happened since then. It is much easier for little bits of information and negativitey to get around. When Dalton was cast, I personally knew many people who thought he was an awful choice (of course without even knowing who he was or had ever seen him in anything)basically because they wanted Pierce Brosnan. It's just that the public knew it was time for Moore to retire and there was no internet to bash him on.

On a side note, people just like to bitch about something. First they bitch because they want Brosnan. But then they bitch because Brosnan is too skinny and is not Sean Connery and the movies are not like they were in the 60's. Then they bitch when the producers hire someone who might have more of the Connery like machoism and plan a movie more like the 60's because he is not Pierce Brosnan and has blond hair. No matter what happens, who is cast, for some reason the people will bitch!

The media bashing that Craig is getting is easily worse than what any other Bond got. This was driven home to me when flipping through the channels last night I got to CNN and Paula Zahn Now--it caught my attention when they were running a piece on Bond and Daniel Craig.

The piece was all about the controversy over the casting of Craig--it talked about the anti-Craig site, not being able to drive a stick, having his teeth knocked out, him being blonde, interviewing someone saying he's not good looking enough, etc.

This is very MAINSTREAM ATTENTION and the FIRST IMPRESSION a lot are getting(through this and other mainstream outlets now) beyond Craig's announcement is negative. Craig is being associated with controversy, troubles and shortcomings. This has certainly been spreading and is reaching public consciousness.

None of the other Bonds have had anything near this relentlessly negative bashing before they even started. Even Lazenby before OHMSS came out didn't have near this much bad attention. Dalton had it mostly neutral and Brosnan had mostly positives thrown at him. Sean didn't have to worry about this pre-phenomena and Roger from what I gather had positives or at least neutral.

Daniel Craig with this unprecedented bashing pre-Bond is off to a shaky start that gives him an uphill battle to make it as Bond. His name is already being associated with shortcomings to the mainstream.

And why is Craig getting this? Partly it's our hyper-media world but Dalton a little and especially Pierce dealt with much the same--and Pierce got roses while Timothy had it mostly smooth.

The other part is that Daniel Craig is and always was a risky choice for Bond--especially for the mainstream. He doesn't fit in with the suave, tall darkish cinematic Bond mold that audiences have expected. THIS MAKES HIM AN EASIER TARGET. And the media(at least some of it and then the rest often follows) likes an easy target. You can make the case he's a very talented but miscast actor--though maybe he will suprise a lot of people and really become Bond. He's a big risk and even some of his strong supporters have admitted this--now we have to see if Craig can overcome this and hit one out of the ball park. I'm not sure if he can do it or not. I'm still wait and see though all this mainstream negativity makes me somewhat more pessimistic about box office.

[JimmyBond]

WE ARE STUCK WITH THIS FOR A LONG TIME FOLKS!

Promise? I love Craig and think he'll be a great Bond. I hope he stays around for a while.

[Frankie]

If Daniel Craig ends up being a flop it won't be because of his acting abilities, it will simply be because he doesn't look like the "film" Bonds. Now, notice I said film. A lot of you say that Craig does look the part and he compliments Fleming's Bond. But we're not talking about literary Bond. The media isn't talking about literary Bond. To be successful in film Bond, you have to be film Bond...not literary Bond. Granted, Craig might have the secret agent grittiness and realism that the literary character had. But, honestly, he doesn't have the film Bond look and mannerism.

The literary Bond was not really described by Ian Fleming as detailed as fans think. Despite his reservations at first, even Ian Fleming agreed that Sean Connery was Bond as Bond should be. True, another Sean will probably never happen again. But the standard he set for the role should be respected enough by EON to give us the best possible emulation of Connery. Right now, IMO, that actor is Hugh Jackman. Or at least Clive Owen. I think either, in that order, would have been worth the higher money EON would have had to pay. No time to cut corners and hire Vladimir Putin's long lost brother to play 007.

[bondrocks14]

If Daniel Craig ends up being a flop it won't be because of his acting abilities, it will simply be because he doesn't look like the "film" Bonds. Now, notice I said film. A lot of you say that Craig does look the part and he compliments Fleming's Bond. But we're not talking about literary Bond. The media isn't talking about literary Bond. To be successful in film Bond, you have to be film Bond...not literary Bond. Granted, Craig might have the secret agent grittiness and realism that the literary character had. But, honestly, he doesn't have the film Bond look and mannerism.

You just summed up my fears about Craig better than I ever could've. I love the more movie-esq Bond, the smoother gentleman stylings of Brosnan and Moore, and I also love the gritty, cold, angry Fleming Bond, but the two are a bit mutually exclusive and ne'r the two shall meet. People at this point may just be too used to the Movie Bond.

After 40 years of movie Bond, people are going to be used to it

[SecretAgentFan]

The more I think about it, the more I agree with the media - Craig was the wrong choice for the part of 007.

Based on what, exactly?

Talking with Bond fans and friends. I chatted with one of the CBN team members at an event a couple of weeks ago and even though he has been quiet on the subject of Craig's casting, he admitted that he thought Craig was the wrong choice.
Aside from views on CBN I have yet to talk to someone who is enthusiastic about Craig as 007. A number of people seem to point to him not being attractive enough and some of my pro-Brosnan fans made comments like "Which do you think will be first? Will [Barbie'] Ken doll become a real man, or will CASINO ROYALE get a full cast?"
There just seems to be a general consensus out there that Craig is wrong for the part.

Personally, I'm excited about the casting of Craig, but I think he was the wrong choice.

I understand what you're saying, Darren - but what is the real basis for the concern here, if we look at it? That he's not attractive enough, basically, isn't it? The thing about the film not being cast isn't really a concern, surely. DR NO turned out okay. And I can see the concern over his looks - but then I see the stills and it's like 'The guy's a genius! Last time I saw him he was this haggard big-eared blond guy, and here he is with the fittest most athletic physique of any guy to play Bond yet and he looks as cool as you can be.' Perhaps it's just me, but those stills got me excited*. Sure, he's never going to be as pretty as Pierce. Or even as Tim. But he looks the part - and the guy is a bloody amazing actor!

I'm not really sure what there is to worry about.

Have another look at the photos. And get ready for the best Bond in 30-something years.**

Let's not succumb to the negativity ourselves, people. I thought we were *BOND FANS*. Rallying cry/pep talk over.


* In a non-sexual way, people.
**Except NSNA, of course.

Hear, hear, spynovelfan. It

[jaguar007]

If Daniel Craig ends up being a flop it won't be because of his acting abilities, it will simply be because he doesn't look like the "film" Bonds. Now, notice I said film. A lot of you say that Craig does look the part and he compliments Fleming's Bond. But we're not talking about literary Bond. The media isn't talking about literary Bond. To be successful in film Bond, you have to be film Bond...not literary Bond. Granted, Craig might have the secret agent grittiness and realism that the literary character had. But, honestly, he doesn't have the film Bond look and mannerism.

The literary Bond was not really described by Ian Fleming as detailed as fans think. Despite his reservations at first, even Ian Fleming agreed that Sean Connery was Bond as Bond should be. True, another Sean will probably never happen again. But the standard he set for the role should be respected enough by EON to give us the best possible emulation of Connery. Right now, IMO, that actor is Hugh Jackman. Or at least Clive Owen. I think either, in that order, would have been worth the higher money EON would have had to pay. No time to cut corners and hire Vladimir Putin's long lost brother to play 007.

I think Jackman would have been more of an emulation of Moore/Brosnan than Connery. I think that Craig actually has the rugged coolness that Connery had and every Bond since Connery has lacked. He may not be as tall as Connery or have as dark of hair as Connery (at least he has hair)- but I think he will portray that machoism that Connery had.

[Tinfinger]

In December of this year, how many people will be here saying I told you so? Or what were we thinking? Or we were wrong?

[krypt]

Our local television station today played the CNN "report."

Honestly, does anyone believe that men come out of the womb knowing how to drive a stick? Sure, I used to drive a stick back in the '80s (and very well at that), but someone had to teach me how to do it at first.

Didn't Brosnan also have trouble driving a stick? Isn't Sir Roger Moore also anti-handgun? The so-called "report" didn't mention those facts.

IMHO, the only thing the "report" did correctly was to show the photo of Craig on the beach as Bond ... looking very Sean Connery in "Thunderball" mode at that.

(Personally, I think Craig looks great after darkening his hair for CR).

[Double-Oh Agent]

As jaguar007 said, people like to bitch. And when it comes to the press, they can do it as well as anyone (in large part because they have the forum to do it with).

The press also has a long history of loving to build people up and then tear them down and sometimes repeating the process. In regards to Daniel Craig, they skipped the building up part and went straight to the tearing down. I think this is happening for several reasons. 1) He is replacing a very popular and charismatic 007. The overwhelming majority of people--particularly in the mainstream public--like Brosnan and love him as James Bond. 2) Brosnan was fired/not re-signed to the role in a very public way that rubbed most everybody the wrong way (particularly when most everyone felt that he had another one or two films left in him) and, as a result, they have vented their displeasure over that situation onto the most visible part of EON--Daniel Craig. 3) Not helping matters is that Craig is visually a radical departure from the 007 stereotype (blonde, under 6'0", and not classically handsome). 4) Craig, much like Timothy Dalton, is a good actor but not overly charismatic off-screen which was revealed at his press conference (a fact that was not helped by stupid and inane questions by tabloid journalists). 5) Casino Royale is as equally controversial a film as Craig is as Bond--what with it being a reboot going back to Bond's first mission (and one that stars Judi Dench as Barbara Mawdsley which totally ignores the fact that she was the "M" of the last four films of the original boot). Not to mention that there will be no Moneypenny, no "Q", no tuxedo, and only one explosion in CR which means that this will be a very different Bond film than has been seen previously. And 6) so the press can perpetuate the Bond theory of the odd-numbered 007s being good (Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Brosnan) and the even-numbered 007s being bad (Lazenby, Dalton, Craig).

As a result of all this, Craig, as the film's lead, faces the brunt of the press' attacks and is an easy target. Not only that, but the press have been saying/predicting the end of James Bond as far back as George Lazenby's outing in On Her Majesty's Secret Service in 1969. Every single time since then, they have been proven emphatically wrong but they continue to make those statements because it sells papers/builds ratings and more importantly they want to finally be proved right. They smell blood in the water and are attacking with the gusto of great white sharks in the middle of a chum feeding frenzy. I believe they are also doing this out of their semi-loyalty to good quote, charismatic Brosnan by getting after the next one in line. Had 007 #6 been Hugh Jackman, Eric Bana, or Clive Owen, the press likely would have let the matter slide (or at least went after EON) because of their inherent suitability for Bond but, alas, as was mentioned before, Craig does not fit the Bond stereotype so it is open season on him.

When the press has its sights set on you, there's next to nothing you can do until they go on to their next story. And right now Craig is their favorite whipping boy and EON/Sony are doing little to nothing to slow the tide. Granted, we are quite a few months away from the release of Casino Royale, but you can bet when the winter movie preview articles come out in Premiere, Entertainment Weekly, and USA Today etc. that they will include in their comments about Craig and CR regarding its troubled shoot and controversial casting and direction of the film.

No Bond and no Bond film has had to face this kind of scrutiny and bad press so EON and Craig have their work cut out for them. The press won't continue their attacks all the way through to November but they likely will periodically return to their bashing along the way. The only question is how much of an impact will their bashing have on the cinema-going public? In November Bond will be back and many people will go to see Casino Royale out of curiosity for Craig and because it's also the return of 007. But EON/Sony better hope that the trailer and the film rocks because right now all they've got going for themselves is positive word of mouth from loyal and enthusiastic Bond fans.

[stone cold]

arrghh..the haters are back!

...with their solemn predictions, insightful analysis of EONs /Craigs failings ..their cleary superior grasp of the casting process ..all still in full bloom even when shooting has started, Craig looks awesome to me and everyone i know, and Casino Royale looks in good shape . cant believe some of you guys care too much about the media stuff..dismaying yes..but come on .. they dont dictate anything..you can still like it. dont worry about it, Craig is tough..he was tough at the 1st press conference.. how cool was he? few words..totally Bondian...awesome. and they didnt like that? thats lame.. Craig is our man. He is edgy, dangerous and glamourous in a very tough way ..this is good.

but i guess many of you genuinly want your lightweight bland, prettyboy as Bond...this is clear and IMO a bit sad cos thats not what Bond is to me. Craig is handsome and has an original raw masculinity. he is magnetic as hell on screen - he has real character. hes not media dictated mainsteam cute... deal with it. Sad that this kind of man doesnt fit in with current media trends for the way they like their men.. christ... this guy is so obviously a star . but in some ways maybe he is a dark star - dont worry audiences do get it: there are plenty of edgy uncoventional leading men as leads in successful films: Christian Bale, Joachim Pheonix, Matt Damon, Jake Gyllenhall etc are all unique, unusual and challenging in many ways. I think there is actually a good trend in hollywood recently towards more genuine unique characters/ actors, and classic and powerful filmmaking. I see Casino Royale as part of this. A classic thriller/action movie. Its a great time for a new Bond movie and a new Bond - in both movies and the context and climate of the world at the moment. it will rock.

Bond is not a lightweight male model charmer... all Bonds are different. Craig has the charisma, mean elegance, voice, brooding violence and presence to make this unforgettable. HE will be one of the best Bonds im sure of it.. what is sad is that maybe a general part of the audience isnt ready for this. it is great they have not pandered to this instinct to go the easy route - Which is basically the route some here are suggesting would result in a good Bond film. most of the male haters are really saying 'i dont fancy him'(im scared of him)..and then show it to your vacant eyed girlfriend and she says..oh i prefer Paul Walker as Bond , Justin Timberlake. But Craig's Bond would use your girlfriend, take her from you without even trying, and then leave her double-agent chained to a sink.

We are jumpy and nervous..thats understandable..Craig is a risk..CR is a risk.. but risks are good. I guess it did risk incurring the wrath of the simple people, and the old people. But this sounds both modern, fresh and classic, .. its the boldest sharpest move they could make. get behind it please..this is Bond for Gods sake.

sad. ..that so many Bond fans want another film with the dated same old global domination, megalomaniac with evil henchmen..evil weapons, lightweight globetrotting fop Bond.. blockbuster yes but dangerous? classic? NO. this set up no longer reflects the real danger of the world as the moment.. real, unseen, deadly, ruthless .. this is what Bond will be fighting - for all of us, you will be shouting at the screen rooting him on.

I so hope Craig + CR will blow the doubters away. But i guess your cultivated cynicism is too strong, the negativism and the fact that you clearly could have done is better yourself.. give a rest, jesus..all these threads get taken over. its so boring. lets get excited about it.. it looks awesome, heavy, dramatic action packed classic... surely this is the Bond film we've all been waiting for? I really hope it is.. im nervous..but excited as hell.

wait till u see Craig speak, move, double tap someone in the head, break their neck, land the girl, say something cool, get beaten up, kill some more people, dress in the coolest suit ever, in the most atmospheric location, with the baddest bad guys...with real threat, real danger and then say the immortal words... Bond, James Bond..

looking forward to it, let hope they pull it off.

get behind it at least a little bit, or hold your tongue and wait for a trailer or something then you convince me its all wrong

[avl]

I'm with you Stone Cold...the risks are high, but the potential reward is way higher.

[spynovelfan]

arrghh..the haters are back!

...with their solemn predictions, insightful analysis of EONs /Craigs failings ..their cleary superior grasp of the casting process ..all still in full bloom even when shooting has started, Craig looks awesome to me and everyone i know, and Casino Royale looks in good shape . cant believe some of you guys care too much about the media stuff..dismaying yes..but come on .. they dont dictate anything..you can still like it. dont worry about it, Craig is tough..he was tough at the 1st press conference.. how cool was he? few words..totally Bondian...awesome. and they didnt like that? thats lame.. Craig is our man. He is edgy, dangerous and glamourous in a very tough way ..this is good.

but i guess many of you genuinly want your lightweight bland, prettyboy as Bond...this is clear and IMO a bit sad cos thats not what Bond is to me. Craig is handsome and has an original raw masculinity. he is magnetic as hell on screen - he has real character. hes not media dictated mainsteam cute... deal with it. Sad that this kind of man doesnt fit in with current media trends for the way they like their men.. christ... this guy is so obviously a star . but in some ways maybe he is a dark star - dont worry audiences do get it: there are plenty of edgy uncoventional leading men as leads in successful films: Christian Bale, Joachim Pheonix, Matt Damon, Jake Gyllenhall etc are all unique, unusual and challenging in many ways. I think there is actually a good trend in hollywood recently towards more genuine unique characters/ actors, and classic and powerful filmmaking. I see Casino Royale as part of this. A classic thriller/action movie. Its a great time for a new Bond movie and a new Bond - in both movies and the context and climate of the world at the moment. it will rock.

Bond is not a lightweight male model charmer... all Bonds are different. Craig has the charisma, mean elegance, voice, brooding violence and presence to make this unforgettable. HE will be one of the best Bonds im sure of it.. what is sad is that maybe a general part of the audience isnt ready for this. it is great they have not pandered to this instinct to go the easy route - Which is basically the route some here are suggesting would result in a good Bond film. most of the male haters are really saying 'i dont fancy him'(im scared of him)..and then show it to your vacant eyed girlfriend and she says..oh i prefer Paul Walker as Bond , Justin Timberlake. But Craig's Bond would use your girlfriend, take her from you without even trying, and then leave her double-agent chained to a sink.

We are jumpy and nervous..thats understandable..Craig is a risk..CR is a risk.. but risks are good. I guess it did risk incurring the wrath of the simple people, and the old people. But this sounds both modern, fresh and classic, .. its the boldest sharpest move they could make. get behind it please..this is Bond for Gods sake.

sad. ..that so many Bond fans want another film with the dated same old global domination, megalomaniac with evil henchmen..evil weapons, lightweight globetrotting fop Bond.. blockbuster yes but dangerous? classic? NO. this set up no longer reflects the real danger of the world as the moment.. real, unseen, deadly, ruthless .. this is what Bond will be fighting - for all of us, you will be shouting at the screen rooting him on.

I so hope Craig + CR will blow the doubters away. But i guess your cultivated cynicism is too strong, the negativism and the fact that you clearly could have done is better yourself.. give a rest, jesus..all these threads get taken over. its so boring. lets get excited about it.. it looks awesome, heavy, dramatic action packed classic... surely this is the Bond film we've all been waiting for? I really hope it is.. im nervous..but excited as hell.

wait till u see Craig speak, move, double tap someone in the head, break their neck, land the girl, say something cool, get beaten up, kill some more people, dress in the coolest suit ever, in the most atmospheric location, with the baddest bad guys...with real threat, real danger and then say the immortal words... Bond, James Bond..

looking forward to it, let hope they pull it off.

get behind it at least a little bit, or hold your tongue and wait for a trailer or something then you convince me its all wrong

Dodgy grammar aside, that was a great post. I nearly punched the air at the end there.

[MillesGloriosus]

When Pierce Brosnan started as 007, the Internet wasn't anywhere near as prominent a part of everyday life as it is now. There are those of us who have nothing better to do than contribute to certain websites protesting the Craig choice. Opining about Craig is easier than working on something creative or bettering yourself.

Daniel Craig is a victim of the times he lives in. There are news organizations that constantly look for anything to fill the 24 hour news cycle. This is why Craig's every move is being overly scrutinized.

[Seannery]

Regarding being less of a Bond fan(or being labelled a "hater" as stone cold did) because one is less than TOTALLY optimistic about Craig and CR--I don't buy it. We are ALL real Bond fans and we are ALL projecting and guessing with regards to Daniel Craig. We are Bond fans NOT cheerleaders. It wouldn't be realistic for all Bond fans to agree on any issue and not to have an opinion beforehand. As Dlib says--you can take the perspective that a Bond fan wants the series to thrive and worry if Craig is cast well enough to keep Bond popular to the general audiences. I hope so. We can all have a view on Craig without being called haters. Passion is cool but if that leads to ripping others for not agreeing with your views--well, then that's lame.

[doublenoughtspy]

Good point.

And angry fans were a factor in the tone/direction change from Moonraker to FYEO.

One is allowed to express their feelings about what Eon does. We don't have to agree with everything.

[Kara Milovy]

The literary Bond was not really described by Ian Fleming as detailed as fans think.

I can recall a lot of details...dark, Saturnine, "romantic looking" (per Gala Brandt), resembling Hoagy Carmichael, about six foot one inch, a weight was given but I don't recall it, the dark comma of hair. Very visual.

I think Jackman would have been more of an emulation of Moore/Brosnan than Connery. I think that Craig actually has the rugged coolness that Connery had and every Bond since Connery has lacked. He may not be as tall as Connery or have as dark of hair as Connery (at least he has hair)- but I think he will portray that machoism that Connery had.

Being a huge X-Men fan, I think Jackman just exuded machismo and (literally) animalism. He was romantic and refined in Kate & Leopold, and he was cool and laid back and sexy in Someone Like You. I think he has the whole package, and the long nose and the jaw strongly resemble Fleming's Bond. I remain disappointed he wasn't chosen, but oh well. I've moved on.

[SeanValen00V]

The media bashing that Craig is getting is easily worse than what any other Bond got. This was driven home to me when flipping through the channels last night I got to CNN and Paula Zahn Now--it caught my attention when they were running a piece on Bond and Daniel Craig.

The piece was all about the controversy over the casting of Craig--it talked about the anti-Craig site, not being able to drive a stick, having his teeth knocked out, him being blonde, interviewing someone saying he's not good looking enough, etc.

This is very MAINSTREAM ATTENTION and the FIRST IMPRESSION a lot are getting(through this and other mainstream outlets now) beyond Craig's announcement is negative. Craig is being associated with controversy, troubles and shortcomings. This has certainly been spreading and is reaching public consciousness.

None of the other Bonds have had anything near this relentlessly negative bashing before they even started. Even Lazenby before OHMSS came out didn't have near this much bad attention. Dalton had it mostly neutral and Brosnan had mostly positives thrown at him. Sean didn't have to worry about this pre-phenomena and Roger from what I gather had positives or at least neutral.

Daniel Craig with this unprecedented bashing pre-Bond is off to a shaky start that gives him an uphill battle to make it as Bond. His name is already being associated with shortcomings to the mainstream.

And why is Craig getting this? Partly it's our hyper-media world but Dalton a little and especially Pierce dealt with much the same--and Pierce got roses while Timothy had it mostly smooth.

The other part is that Daniel Craig is and always was a risky choice for Bond--especially for the mainstream. He doesn't fit in with the suave, tall darkish cinematic Bond mold that audiences have expected. THIS MAKES HIM AN EASIER TARGET. And the media(at least some of it and then the rest often follows) likes an easy target. You can make the case he's a very talented but miscast actor--though maybe he will suprise a lot of people and really become Bond. He's a big risk and even some of his strong supporters have admitted this--now we have to see if Craig can overcome this and hit one out of the ball park. I'm not sure if he can do it or not. I'm still wait and see though all this mainstream negativity makes me somewhat more pessimistic about box office.

I agree, and what you forgot to add was, Craig replaced a popular James Bond who didn't want to quit the role, that didn't happen with Connery or Moore, Brosnan was publically fired, he has fans, he was well recieved, and was let go in a bitter way.

This is another thing to effect the way Daniel Craig was appointed.


Add it all up, it doens't look good, the producers should never have hired a new bond while the current one had another one in him, and wanted to do it, and public waiting for it. The next bond actor rumour is alot of fun for the media, but a pick a odd choice, like Craig over a expected choice like Hugh Jackman, you got more problems.






SOMETIMES LISTENTING TO FANS WORK, Christian Bale was bascially picked off the internet of Batman fans, and Batman Begins was better for it. This site was pro Jackman mostly last year, and alot of polls had Brosnan and Jackman leading on websites.

They should of hired Brosnan for one more, and then hire Jackman in 2007, perfect, but they didn't do this, a big mistake.


The problem is the Bond producers have little thought left, they need to take a step back and get some new talent in to take over from them, they are easily becoming the Rick Bermens of the Bond fanchise, Rick ruined star trek, a popular sci fi show for a long time, show a lack of care, things happen, I was a big trek fan, but he messed up the spin offs voyager and enterprise, and insurrection and nemesis is no way to follow their First Contact film which was better.

It's easy to destroy then to create, Bond producers are too tired, too soft and not brave enough to make the decisions to improve Bond.


I think if Casino fails, it'll be the only way publically to say you are the problem producers. It'll be sad, but since EON don't talk much, what else is there to get through to them?