35 replies to this topic

[Spurrier]

Sounds very Roger Mooresque. That kind of personality will serve him and the Bond franchise well. After having put up with the pricky personalities of other Bond actors in the past, it will be refreshing to have one who doesn't take himself too seriously.

[marktmurphy]

Hmm.. not really- they've all been good humoured in the press. Pierce was certainly always very entertaining and self-depreciating in interviews.

[BlackSpy]

I subscribe to ESQUIRE (hey, it's just 25 cents!) and received its recent issue just yesterday. While I was extremely glad to see Daniel Craig on the cover as well as named "Best dressed man of the year", I have following reservations:

- ESQUIRE seems to have very conservative taste when it comes to fashion. Once they wrote that using belt clips for cell phones is a deadly sin.
- The article about Daniel Craig was written by someone who particularly specified that he was NOT a Bond fan. Except for TLD, the author wrote that he didn't pay for any Bond film. He also thought that it was a good thing, as "no fans can judge correctly what's good for their idol."
- As Craig being "best dressed", they also wrote that it was only because he was cast as Bond.
- Finally, does James Bond really matter any more? The main article on Daniel Craig was just 5 pages, while ESQUIRE covered, for instance, global warming with 20+.

[Harmsway]

- ESQUIRE seems to have very conservative taste when it comes to fashion. Once they wrote that using belt clips for cell phones is a deadly sin.

Eh, to look truly fashionable, belt clips for cell phones are no-nos. That's definitely not overly conservative - it's just honest.

- As Craig being "best dressed", they also wrote that it was only because he was cast as Bond.

No, they wrote: "Would we have named him the best-dressed man in the world if her weren't the new James Bond? Maybe not. But playing the best-dressed protagonist in the history of cinema is a hell of a promotion. It tends to elevate one's game."

That's a different comment entirely from saying it was "just because he's James Bond."

- Finally, does James Bond really matter any more? The main article on Daniel Craig was just 5 pages, while ESQUIRE covered, for instance, global warming with 20+.

Well, do you really think Bond/Craig/CASINO ROYALE could support a 20+ page article without boring the hell out of readers? I don't.

[dee-bee-five]

I subscribe to ESQUIRE (hey, it's just 25 cents!) and received its recent issue just yesterday. While I was extremely glad to see Daniel Craig on the cover as well as named "Best dressed man of the year", I have following reservations:

- ESQUIRE seems to have very conservative taste when it comes to fashion. Once they wrote that using belt clips for cell phones is a deadly sin.

It is. Vulgarity can go no further.

The main article on Daniel Craig was just 5 pages, while ESQUIRE covered, for instance, global warming with 20+.

Imagine... they consider global warming more important than the next Bond film. How can such perversity persist in the media...?

Edited by dee-bee-five, 22 August 2006 - 08:47 PM.

[BlackSpy]

Hey, fellow ESQUIRE man

- As Craig being "best dressed", they also wrote that it was only because he was cast as Bond.

No, they wrote: "Would we have named him the best-dressed man in the world if her weren't the new James Bond? Maybe not. But playing the best-dressed protagonist in the history of cinema is a hell of a promotion. It tends to elevate one's game."

That's a different comment entirely from saying it was "just because he's James Bond."

I disagree. After reading your quote, it's obvious to me that the main reason for their choice was "a hell of a promotion".


It's my second day, and people are sarcastic already.

Imagine... they consider global warming more important than the next Bond film. How can such perversity persist in the media...?

If you had read ESQUIRE, you would've realized that the article's length was way below-average for a cover topic.

Edited by BlackSpy, 22 August 2006 - 08:53 PM.

[dee-bee-five]

Hey, fellow ESQUIRE man

- As Craig being "best dressed", they also wrote that it was only because he was cast as Bond.

No, they wrote: "Would we have named him the best-dressed man in the world if her weren't the new James Bond? Maybe not. But playing the best-dressed protagonist in the history of cinema is a hell of a promotion. It tends to elevate one's game."

That's a different comment entirely from saying it was "just because he's James Bond."

I disagree. After reading your quote, it's obvious to me that the main reason for their choice was "a hell of a promotion".


It's my second day, and people are sarcastic already.

Imagine... they consider global warming more important than the next Bond film. How can such perversity persist in the media...?

If you had read ESQUIRE, you would've realized that the article's length was way below-average for a cover topic.

You should be flattered - sarcasm is the highest form of wit, didn't you know...?

[Bon-san]

It's my second day, and people are sarcastic already.

Well, I think you beat the averages.

Please let me extend you a hearty, sarcasm-free welcome to CommanderBond.net, Blackspy. I hope you won't be put off by the tidal flows of irony, sarcasm, flippancy, badgering, grandstanding, etc., etc. It is the internet in 2006, after all. But we try to keep it friendly in the main around here. And I think we succeed most of the time.

In any event, since you list OHMSS as your favorite Bond film, you have already made a friend in yours truly.

See you around the boards.

[dee-bee-five]

It's my second day, and people are sarcastic already.

In any event, since you list OHMSS as your favorite film, you have already made a friend in yours truly.

Without a hint of sarcasm or irony, I'll second that...

[Harmsway]

- As Craig being "best dressed", they also wrote that it was only because he was cast as Bond.

No, they wrote: "Would we have named him the best-dressed man in the world if her weren't the new James Bond? Maybe not. But playing the best-dressed protagonist in the history of cinema is a hell of a promotion. It tends to elevate one's game."

That's a different comment entirely from saying it was "just because he's James Bond."

I disagree. After reading your quote, it's obvious to me that the main reason for their choice was "a hell of a promotion".

No, the idea is that the main reason for their choice is that Craig's game was elevated by playing Bond, and thereby made suitable for the choice. And it's true - it's the part that brought him into the limelight and has upped his game, thereby making him a worthy candidate.

[BlackSpy]

Aren't we saying the same thing, Harmsway?
"Craig without Bond role" < "Craig with Bond role".
All I meant originally is that ESQUIRE didn't give the title to Craig, but to Bond, whom Craig is, of course (I am not one of the anti-Craig people, if you are worried about that).

[Harmsway]

All I meant originally is that ESQUIRE didn't give the title to Craig, but to Bond, whom Craig is, of course (I am not one of the anti-Craig people, if you are worried about that).

That's what I disagree with. They gave the title to Craig, not Bond. Getting the role of Bond only upped Craig's personal game as a fashionable man, thereby enabling him to be the best-dressed man.

[bernsmartin007]

Hmm.. not really- they've all been good humoured in the press. Pierce was certainly always very entertaining and self-depreciating in interviews.

I have seen Brosnan on Parkinson and another chat show talking about himself and he loves himself, some parts were almost stomach churning to listen to. The way he affects a really phoney smarmy accent too and over does everything.

Connery used to be like that but not so much now he's older, however it was in a more arrogant scotish manner. He was also an extremely grumpy and rude person, once reported as having shouted at some little kids who came over asking for an autograph, "f*** off ya little bastards!" then driven off.

Tim Dalton was always a very shy, soft spoken person and Roger Moore was always a light hearted, jokey person. Lazenby was a bit cocky but not particularly loving himself...in any case he was an unarmed combat instructor in the Australian special forces so he has a bit more reason to be cocky.

I think Craig is just a very genuine person, he's fine with 1 reporter but at a big conference with himself in the spotlight he can be a bit shy. He hates them prying into his private life, but is more than happy to talk about the work he is doing and he doesn't show off or talk himself up as a person, he just praises his co-stars/directors etc.

All I meant originally is that ESQUIRE didn't give the title to Craig, but to Bond, whom Craig is, of course (I am not one of the anti-Craig people, if you are worried about that).

That's what I disagree with. They gave the title to Craig, not Bond. Getting the role of Bond only upped Craig's personal game as a fashionable man, thereby enabling him to be the best-dressed man.

I have always thought Daniel Craig was a particularly fashionable guy, and he's been doing modeling for mens/clothes magazines for years. I always noticed his expensive jeans and well cut shirts and stuff but he dresses in a very modern and relaxed manner.

He has had some dreadful haircuts for various films though lol.

Edited by bernsmartin007, 22 August 2006 - 09:49 PM.

[dee-bee-five]

Hmm.. not really- they've all been good humoured in the press. Pierce was certainly always very entertaining and self-depreciating in interviews.

I have seen Brosnan on Parkinson and another chat show talking about himself and he loves himself, some parts were almost stomach churning to listen to. The way he affects a really phoney smarmy accent too and over does everything.

I profoundly disagree with this assessment.

[bernsmartin007]

Hmm.. not really- they've all been good humoured in the press. Pierce was certainly always very entertaining and self-depreciating in interviews.

I have seen Brosnan on Parkinson and another chat show talking about himself and he loves himself, some parts were almost stomach churning to listen to. The way he affects a really phoney smarmy accent too and over does everything.

I profoundly disagree with this assessment.

An Irish Tom Cruise there.

[marktmurphy]

- ESQUIRE seems to have very conservative taste when it comes to fashion. Once they wrote that using belt clips for cell phones is a deadly sin.

Please tell me you don't go outside wearing one of those things. You'll be telling me you tuck your T-shirts into your jeans and do the top bottom of your polo shirts up next!

- As Craig being "best dressed", they also wrote that it was only because he was cast as Bond.

Probably, yes, but have a look who was standing next to Pierce on the front cover of last year's GQ which announced their most stylish men of 2005.... and he didn't have the gig then.

[Dr. Noah]

If you had read ESQUIRE, you would've realized that the article's length was way below-average for a cover topic.

The cover topic was "Best Dressed Men." He was #1 with the cover and 5 pages. CR isn't in theatres for three months. They aren't DOING "in depth" stuff on it yet. They're still cutting the friggin' film!

[kneelbeforezod]

I have seen Brosnan on Parkinson and another chat show talking about himself and he loves himself, some parts were almost stomach churning to listen to. The way he affects a really phoney smarmy accent too and over does everything.

I profoundly disagree with this assessment.

I agree with the statement

Actually perhaps it's a little harsh... but I think I saw that Parkinson episode and I found him a little smarmy. I don't want to this to degenerate into brozza-bashing (he says, degenerating into brozza-bashing) but I always felt as though Brosnan was a dork trapped in a model's body. He tried too hard to sound cool and laid back, and he also suffered from what I call "fake laugh syndrome", where he would randomly crack up and flash his teeth in a rather forced way (Tom Cruise is another sufferer of FLS).

But I don't have a major problem with the guy, he's a nice enough chap (I'm sure he's so relieved I don't have a problem with him )

[Broadsword]

I just want to say that I agree that mobile phones hip-belt holders are indeed a sinful fashion faux pas.

The underarm 'gun holster' look is much more masculine.

[Jim]

This thread is now longer than the sodding Esquire article.

But for what it's worth - belt clips for telephones - except for (oh I don't know) oil rig workers and stevedores (are there such things any more?), dear oh dear oh dear. Would anyone would want to call such a person anyway?

[Broadsword]

I agree we have moved away from Esquire.

However there is a more pressing question.

Have you ever seen anyone who wears the hip-belt phone holster actually have their phone ring,,,and them answer it?

Teachers as a profession are particularly guilty. Wear 'em all day (all year!!!) and no one rings!


However, the Night club door man with Underarm holsters are the most shameless.

If you are drunk enough you can mistake them for guns for a few seconds /.....and then you think "No, its just a doorman who looks like a tit!'

Can we add 'Whores' and 'tits' to the censorship machine.

I expected a censorhsip sticker thingy and I just offended myself after I read it.

Edited by Broadsword, 23 August 2006 - 06:17 AM.

[dee-bee-five]

This thread is now longer than the sodding Esquire article.

But for what it's worth - belt clips for telephones - except for (oh I don't know) oil rig workers and stevedores (are there such things any more?), dear oh dear oh dear. Would anyone would want to call such a person anyway?

I wouldn't want to call them anything; I wouldn't want to acknowledge they exist...

Hmm.. not really- they've all been good humoured in the press. Pierce was certainly always very entertaining and self-depreciating in interviews.

I have seen Brosnan on Parkinson and another chat show talking about himself and he loves himself, some parts were almost stomach churning to listen to. The way he affects a really phoney smarmy accent too and over does everything.

I profoundly disagree with this assessment.

An Irish Tom Cruise there.

A clip from 1985? That's the best you can muster to bolster your case? Listen, I know most posters on here weren't even born in 1985 but some of us were. And if you were to dredge up a clip of any of us from then, we'd all look like dorks!

If you are drunk enough you can mistake them for guns for a few seconds /.....and then you think "No, its just a doorman who looks like a tit!'

Can we add 'Whores' and 'tits' to the censorship machine.

I expected a censorhsip sticker thingy and I just offended myself after I read it.

We need less censorship in the world, not more...

[Jim]

Can we add 'Whores' and 'tits' to the censorship machine.

But then we'd be accused of censorship by the anti-Craigers as they would have to find new things to call Barbara Broccoli.

[Santa]

Sorry Blackspy, but mobile 'phones on belt clips reach shocking heights of naffness. I may start wearing one to start some kind of 'ironic' style movement...

As for Bond actor personalities, it would be nice if Craig were normal. Roger is the best, he couldn't possibly match him and shouldn't try; I've never been that impressed by Sean Connery; Tim Dalton is a lovely, lovely man and my opinion of his films grew after seeing him in interviews, it's just a shame the public didn't take to him. Unfortunately, I did find Pierce entirely naff. When he was first chosen as Bond I thought he was a good choice, good-looking, charming etc., but then I kept seeing him in interviews where he comes across as very twattish and it really put me off. When he does self-deprecating, it seems as if he's saying, for example, "I'm not that good-looking" only in the hope that someone will say "Oh Pierce, but you are that good-looking", as in he's fishing for compliments. Yep, extremely smarmy, extremely off-putting. Craig seems to be a normal bloke, which is maybe less than I desire in my Bond actor but has to be better than teeth flashing Pierce.

[marktmurphy]

When he does self-deprecating, it seems as if he's saying, for example, "I'm not that good-looking" only in the hope that someone will say "Oh Pierce, but you are that good-looking", as in he's fishing for compliments.

Yeah; fair enough- I see what you mean to an extent. He's not that bad, though. Especially when he was talking to the Brit media, for some reason he'd go all mockney and he'd usually come across pretty well.

[Broadsword]

Can we add 'Whores' and 'tits' to the censorship machine.

But then we'd be accused of censorship by the anti-Craigers as they would have to find new things to call Barbara Broccoli.

good point. But 'torpedo' and 'nipples' can still be in the same sentence without being censored so they should be okay....

[Broadsword]

A clip from 1985? That's the best you can muster to bolster your case? Listen, I know most posters on here weren't even born in 1985 but some of us were. And if you were to dredge up a clip of any of us from then, we'd all look like dorks!

[/quote]


I don't think he is too bad. He seems like a normal nice guy, who has just made it big.

Did you noticce how Letterman actually used to let people TALK? Amazing. Maybe people had longer attention spans back then..

As for us all looking like dorks in 1985. Speak for yourself mate.

Although I was only 9 in 1985, I had the mullet-cellphone belt clip combo look off too to a tee. Even had a whispy-red-neck tash from cat hair I had collected. Aahhhh the days when American fashion was 'in'.

The cell phone was a wee bit heavy, but trust me I looked the biz!!

Bring back the beltclip-mullet combo!!!

Edited by Broadsword, 23 August 2006 - 08:35 AM.

[spynovelfan]

The reason Craig is Esquire's best dressed man might have something to do with them getting the interview with him. They didn't even hide this, declaring him best dressed man in the same issue as the interview. No biggie - it's not like these are *real contests*, is it?

Don't have any problem with a non-Bond fan doing the interview. Most people aren't Bond fans, and a digressions on Messervy and Hargreaves probably would have put some readers off. Plus, he was obviously something of a Bond fan, and it's a brilliantly written article and a great interview.

I always thought Brosnan gave great interviews, though.

[bernsmartin007]

An Irish Tom Cruise there.

A clip from 1985? That's the best you can muster to bolster your case? Listen, I know most posters on here weren't even born in 1985 but some of us were. And if you were to dredge up a clip of any of us from then, we'd all look like dorks!

I said nothing about the way he looks, it's his attitude. I love me, who do you love?

But now you mention it, yea he does look like a dork too. He looked better as he got older and cut the hair.

Even in Goldeneye he was a serious pretty boy and rather weedy with narrow shoulders, I honestly have never known why so many people think he's such a good James Bond. He had thick dark hair and that was about it, though Americans all kissed his from Remington Steele, one of the most awful TV series I have ever seen by the way.

He was an ok Bond with unusually luxurious hair, but he was not stand out, certainly not great or close to the best. Goldeneye was a particularly good Bond film and the rest tailed off slowly into the abiss that was DAD, though not his fault he didn't help with his bored, wooden performances.

To be fair I can actually see why some people would think he was great as Bond...those people who confuse good looks and charm for being like James Bond.

Edited by bernsmartin007, 23 August 2006 - 11:00 AM.

[spynovelfan]

Suh-LAAAMMM!