16 replies to this topic

[OVERLORD]

There really not going to get off his case anytime soon are they

http://www.femalefir...ty/92042004.htm

[Craig'sGIrl]

This is just stupid. Recycled quotes and whatnot. Couldn't they have just put up a hot shot of him be done with it?

Sheesh.

[hcmv007]

SOS. The last s does NOT stand for song.

[Loomis]

Daniel Craig's bumbling Bond

Daniel Craig wants to turn James Bond into a bumbling fool.

The British actor - who replaced Pierce Brosnan in the latest instalment of the spy franchise, 'Casino Royale' - thinks it will make the iconic character "more exciting".

He revealed: "I just wanted to see him make a few mistakes.

"I want to make the audience believe that it's all going to go wrong and then when it goes right it's much more exciting.

He added: "Nobody knows more than I do how important this is, and it's my job to get it right."

However, the 38-year-old doesn't want Bond fans to think he is changing the character too drastically.

Well, you read it here first, folks: CASINO ROYALE will not only be a ripoff of Bourne and BATMAN BEGINS - Bond is going to be turned into a Clouseau clone, too.

Since when does "make a few mistakes" automatically mean "bumbling fool"? Has any Bond film ever had so much rubbish written about it during shooting? I don't recall seeing:

- (In response to the news that Bond and Wai Lin would nick a motorbike for a chase in TND): "The makers of the new James Bond film want to turn 007 into a thief who'll steal anything that isn't nailed down."

Or:

- (In response to the news that Bond would visit Hong Kong in DAD and reassure a Chinese agent that he wasn't looking to recapture the place for Britain): "In a shocking move, Britain's favourite superspy will no longer be patriotic, sources say. The new film, Beyond The Ice, features Bond making a tearful apology to the Chinese for British rule in Hong Kong, and he will angrily denounce his country's imperial past throughout the film. Indeed, this time it'll be the villain who uses a Union Jack parachute to float to earth in an eye-popping action scene, not Bond."

I mean, the mind boggles. Still, let 'em write this nonsense.

[DLibrasnow]

Wow...anyone would think it was the CBn Party line to support Daniel Craig without reservation.

[David Schofield]

Mm, but Brozza's Bond, for example, was hardly fool-proof.

EG:

1.led a very merry dance by Electra. Is/she isn't she telling the truth? Come on, he shags her and still can't tell she's got half her ear missing!

2. Goes after Graves with a non-functioning P99 after Rosamund Pike removes firing pin. Wouldn't an efficient agent check this first?

No, DC is not the first Clousea-Bond. Hell gets caught often enough. Those Brozza things come to mind but I'm sure we could make a long list of Bondian stupidity (even if it is only to extend the storyline)...

[Skudor]

Hilarious how stupid some parts of the 'media' are. I really didn't realise that people that stupid actually got jobs.

[DLibrasnow]

I really didn't realise that people that stupid actually got jobs.

Well, Purvis and Wade have jobs.

[avl]

Wow...anyone would think it was the CBn Party line to support Daniel Craig without reservation.

So you dont think that the "Bumbling Bond" headline is a misrepresentation of Craig's interview with Ross?

[David Schofield]

Wow...anyone would think it was the CBn Party line to support Daniel Craig without reservation.

So you dont think that the "Bumbling Bond" headline is a misrepresentation of Craig's interview with Ross?

I think Darren's loyalaty to the Fourth Estate tends to cloud his judgement

[SecretAgentFan]

Wow...anyone would think it was the CBn Party line to support Daniel Craig without reservation.

So you dont think that the "Bumbling Bond" headline is a misrepresentation of Craig's interview with Ross?

It

[hcmv007]

Hilarious how stupid some parts of the 'media' are. I really didn't realise that people that stupid actually got jobs.

Yes, then they become publicists!

[Stephen Spotswood]

Actually Connery, Lazenby and Dalton got so much flack, they needed flack jackets. The papers referred to Connery as a coffin polisher or a lorry (truck) driver, former jobs of his, not the Eton educated Bond. Lazenby got blamed for not being Connery. Although the critics seemed to like Dalton, they said he looked more comfortable wearing tights and carrying a sword. I do remember one critic who seemed to be annoyed how Dalton did so much of his acting with his eyes. Some even questioned the need for Bond movies in a post Cold War era of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and AIDs.

Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan were the only ones they seemed to welcome, and we all see how that worked out. Profitable, assembly-line, forgetable productions.

Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 04 April 2006 - 02:58 PM.

[JimmyBond]

Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan were the only ones they seemed to welcome, and we all see how that worked out. Profitable, assembly-line, forgetable productions.

It's no coincidence that those types of Bond films are also the most profitable. Bitch and moan all they like, people are entertained by formulaic pictures.

[Qwerty]

Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan were the only ones they seemed to welcome, and we all see how that worked out. Profitable, assembly-line, forgetable productions.

It's no coincidence that those types of Bond films are also the most profitable.

What about the Sean Connery era? Thunderball, for example.

[JimmyBond]

Well now that's different isnt it. That was before audiences were shown the big budget, formulaic Bond film. True Goldfinger gave us the formula, but it's not until YOLT where the films started to become the assembly lined productions I spoke of. OHMSS failed (or at least performed less than expected) because it tried to be something different. Notice it wasnt until FYEO that the producers tried something different. Again it wasnt as successful.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I honestly doubt that Daniel Craig is going to play James Bond a'la Maxwell Smart. This sounds a little like the Batman formula by Robert Kahn and Bill Finger. In each story, the caped crusader will come up against the villain three times. The first two times he'll either be defeated, or be in a draw, and the third time he would succeed.

Most books on how to write fiction of any sort suggests the writer diagram the course of events as either + or -. The first is something positive for the protagonist, the latter something negative, like a set-back. That's to increase suspense, and to make the conclusion satisfying, but not necessarily predictable. That is what I think Daniel Craig is going after.

Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 11 April 2006 - 02:23 PM.