70 replies to this topic

[the dark knight]

Hi, am new here. I'm on the fence regading Craig's Bond but I saw this on another Bond site and made me very concerned that Eon and Sony have cast the wrong man as Bond. When I say the wrong man, I mean an actor that people won't consider is the right for the part. What you're about to see may change how you see Daniel Craig as Bond. Two images that I find quite powerful.



http://img283.images...1700x465ve1.jpg

That is Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre. But in my opinion, he looks like James Bond. Compare Mikkelsen with Craig:




http://img175.images...gvsmads1au8.jpg

Mads Mikkelsen looks far more like Bond than Daniel Craig!

I hope I am allowed to post the actual images. I've put up the links as well.

My major concern is how will the public, not the core fanbase, but the public believe Craig is Bond when the villain looks closer to the part than Bond? It would seem to be Craig is visually miscast. With all the will in the world, I think Craig is on a hiding to nothing when he's in the same scenes as Mikkelsen because the audience will see how Mikkelsen looks far more Bondlike than Craig. Craig will lose some or a lot of Bond credibility because of this.

Craig may be a good Bond but I think the producers have made a terrible mistake in casting an actor that looks more like the villain, and casting an actor as the villain that looks more like Bond. I feel this is a potentially disastrous casting error and people won't believe Craig is Bond. Bond should never look less conventionally handsome than the villain but Eon have done this by casting Craig.

I cannot see Casino Royale being a big hit when Bond looks like the villain and the villain looks more like Bond. I think CBn posters should recognise this now rather than hoping (or praying) people don't think it's a big deal. It will be a big deal because Eon and Sony are asking people to pay to see a Bond actor that looks more like the villain than Bond. I can't see any cogent business sense in casting such an actor. It seems totally counter-productive. I fear Casino Royale will not be a big hit. Hand on heart, I truly believe Daniel Craig is visually miscast and the lower box office will reflect that.

Whatever the merits of Craig's acting ability, Bond should never look less handsome than the main villain. It destroys the image of Bond.

Edited by the dark knight, 01 September 2006 - 12:03 AM.

[Skudor]

I'll respectfully disagree :-)

[the dark knight]

I've posted this thread twice. Sorry. I was editing it and mucked it up. Please delete one of the threads. Thanks.

What are people's thoughts on Craig's look and Mikkelsen's? I think it could be fatal to the chances of the film's success if average movie goers see both actors on screen and think Mikkelsen is more Bondian in appearance. I can't see how this will help Craig's box office appeal.

I know Craig has acting ability and will give Bond a rougher edge, but still, Mikkelsen is a quite a handsome man. Perhaps Eon should have cast a less conventionally handsome man as Le Chiffre? If I recall, Fleming's Le Chiffre was fairly unattractive, someone Bond found a bit replusive to look at. Fleming's Bond was handsome (in Vesper Lynd's eyes) and Le Chiffre wasn't. I'm not sure Eon's casting reflects that.

[Agent 76]

Mads Mikkelsen looks like Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Sorry I don't see it. Le Chiffre looks like a pretty boy, even a little efeminate. Craig looks like he could manhandle poor Mads if given the chance.

[Skudor]

So why does the villain look like Bond and Bond like a villain??? I'm not sure I'm getting the basis of this argument.

[the dark knight]

My point is perhaps more to do with looking beyond the core fanbase and thinking what the paying public will think. It's an economic decision. Do the public want to pay to see a Bond that some people could argue features a Bond who is less Bond looking than the villain?

Even if CR rocks as a Bond film, even if Craig rocks as Bond, I can't see the business sense in casting that way. That's what I'm finding hard to understand. Perhaps people won't care. Then again, perhaps they will. I guess Eon doesn't think it's important. Time will tell if they made the right choice.

Edited by the dark knight, 01 September 2006 - 12:07 AM.

[Skudor]

I don't think many people will be confused or think that at all. It's pretty obvious that Mads is a villain... the scar, for example...

[zencat]

Can you say Moo Moo...

[Skudor]

Can you say Moo Moo...

Indeed...

[the dark knight]

I'm not saying people will confuse Bond with the villain - I'm just talking about their appearance. Don't forget, we've had 20 films where Bond has looked like the conventional handsome hero and the villains, in the main, haven't been handsome types. In my opinion, Mikkelsen looks a bit more like a possible Bond than he should! Was it wise to cast a pretty man as the villain? Won't that make Craig look less like Bond? The contrast between the two could do Craig no favours.

Edited by the dark knight, 01 September 2006 - 12:14 AM.

[spynovelfan]

I love MooMoo. I think there should be a thread devoted to him, where he can post all his views in one place, under all aliases... and we can all ignore him.

[Publius]

There can't be any "proof" about something that's strictly a matter of opinion.

I for one think Craig looks the part, despite not all stills of him being ideal, because Brosnan, Dalton, Moore, and even Connery had a number of bad shots. The picture you posted is one of the few I don't like of Craig, but unless the camera freeze-frames or lingers, it won't detract from the film.

And though I don't think Mads looks more like Bond than Craig (pale with lipstick...what is this, FRWL?), it wouldn't matter much to me anyway. I'd say the villain was as good or better looking than Bond in at least GoldenEye, LTK, AVTAK, and Golden Gun. Doesn't ruin those movies.

Edited by Publius, 01 September 2006 - 12:17 AM.

[the dark knight]

Look, please consider this thread. It's getting to the heart of Craig's suitablity for the role.

If people don't want to see a Bond less handsome than the villain, CR will flop. It will, honest. So it's best not to dismiss this thread. That's all.

Edited by the dark knight, 01 September 2006 - 12:16 AM.

[Skudor]

I'm not saying people will confuse Bond with the villain - I'm just talking about their appearance. Don't forget, we've had 20 films where Bond has looked like the conventional handsome hero and the villains, in the main, haven't been handsome types. In my opinion, Mikkelsen looks a bit more like a possible Bond than he should! Was it wise to cast a pretty man as the villain? Won't that make Craig look less like Bond? The contrast between the two could do Craig no favours.

I don't think people had that problem with Trevelyan in GoldenEye, where this should have been an issue, or Graves in DAD.

[spynovelfan]

I'd say the villain was as good or better looking than Bond in GoldenEye, LTK, AVTAK (if only for Walken's youth), and Golden Gun. Doesn't ruin those movies.

GOLDENEYE? You're nuts!

I do actually think Moo Moo has a very slight point. Craig's looks are still going to be talked about however well he performs and however successful the film is. Bond is primal, and 12-year-olds around the world will continue to sputter at their first glimpse of him, and say he looks like Necros. And he does. And they'll post it on the interweb and all that jazz.

But he's Bond. No amount of trolling or boycott websites or whatever will change it. I think and hope he's going to be a damn good one, but for those of you who can't see it, well... live with it. He has been cast.

[the dark knight]

Look, folks, mock me but this is important. Do you want Craig to succeed as Bond or not? If you do, then Eon shouldn't have cast a more handsome bloke as the villain.

Bond is meant to be handsome.

Craig won't be around for Bond 22. We all know this, deep down. He's miscast. Visually miscast. I'll leave it at that. But it's worth just thinking about what I've posted, and it's worth thinking what Joe Public will think when they see Craig's Bond looking less like Bond than the villain. It won't help the movie's chances of making a profit.

Adios.

[Skudor]

I'd say the villain was as good or better looking than Bond in GoldenEye, LTK, AVTAK (if only for Walken's youth), and Golden Gun. Doesn't ruin those movies.

GOLDENEYE? You're nuts!

I do actually think Moo Moo has a very slight point. Craig's looks are still going to be talked about however well he performs and however successful the film is. Bond is primal, and 12-year-olds around the world will continue to sputter at their first glimpse of him, and say he looks like Necros. And he does. And they'll post it on the interweb and all that jazz.

But he's Bond. No amount of trolling or boycott websites or whatever will change it. I think and hope he's going to be a damn good one, but for those of you who can't see it, well... live with it. He has been cast.

I'm not so sure... a bit of spit and polish goes a long way. We've already seen that he looks pretty good on film. Sure, there will be comparison to model toy boy Brosnan... but nothing as dramatic as this.

[the dark knight]

Casino Royale will flop, folks. Less than 100 million US domestic and 250 million max total worldwide. Eon have cast, by Bond standards, an ugly man as Bond.

An ugly James Bond is an oxymoron but more than that, it's the worst business decision imaginable. It's like a sportscar that can never get out of first gear, a beautiful meal that's served cold. It's never going to be a hit with the public.

Wishing people will love Craig's look is just that - wishing. Joe Public won't take to Craig because he's got none of the aspiration people want from Bond. Gritty is not enough in a Bond film. Want grit, watch Bourne. Want aspiration, watch Bond. But Craig undermines this and it's simply because nature didn't give him the right face for Bond (nor, I would argue Bond charm).

I'll come back in December or January and I'll be proven right. If wrong, I'll apologise and you can mock me all you like. But Agent Moomoo is certain Casino Royale is going to mirror Miami Vice's box office. And that wasn't too good, folks! CR will flop. Sad but it's going to happen.

See ya.

Edited by the dark knight, 01 September 2006 - 12:27 AM.

[Skudor]

Take care moomoo... I'll happily give you a pat on the back if you're right.

[kneelbeforezod]

Fascinating stuff! Really thought-provoking thread. I've never considered the issue of Craig's looks before.

Hey... something else just occurred to me... Craig is blond! Shouldn't Bond have dark hair? I think I'm onto something here... might start a new thread about it...

[James Blond]

The Dark Knight? I'm assuming you are a Batman fan? (me,too) Remember in 1989 when they were finally going to make a serious Batman movie? Then they went and cast Micheal Keaton as Batman. Everyone shook they head saying what a crazy idea. After he was cast I rented the movie Clean & Sober starring Keaton, and what I saw blew me away. He was a great actor, and I was confident he would go fine, and other than Bale he was probably the best Batman.
When Eon cast Craig, I didn't know much about him other than the fact he looked more like a man who really could posses a license to kill than the "pretty boy" actors who were also up for the role. I then bought the DVD Layer Cake and was hooked. He was great, and I know he'll be a great Bond. I'm not worried about his portrayal of Bond at all.

[Publius]

GOLDENEYE? You're nuts!

I think Sean Bean is a more handsome guy than Brosnan. So sue me.

I do actually think Moo Moo has a very slight point. Craig's looks are still going to be talked about however well he performs and however successful the film is. Bond is primal, and 12-year-olds around the world will continue to sputter at their first glimpse of him, and say he looks like Necros. And he does. And they'll post it on the interweb and all that jazz.

If he performs well and the movie is good, yeah, I think a lot of people will say things to the effect of "he's good, even if not so good-looking, maybe even ugly". Of course, there are going to be a lot of women fauning over him and his body, too, so it's impossible to tell how it'll balance out. Or if it'll even matter from a box office perspective.

I mean, knowing the nature of young males, I doubt too many of them will be raving about how un-pretty Craig is or how they miss looking at Brosnan's smooth face. They'll be talking about how much he "kicked butt", how "badass" he was, or how "cool" the action is. And the ladies, of course.

Unlike MooMoo, I'm not worried about "Joe Public" avoiding a Bond flick because they don't find Bond sexually attractive. That's on the bottom of the list for most heterosexual men, so it'd take an audience that was significantly female and horny-but-not-for-Craig to make CR the failure some are predicting. And that's assuming a new crowd (Bourne and Batman Begins fans, for starters?) won't be able to counter-act that dent.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

Can you say Moo Moo...

Actually I think it's AJB's Arthur Pringle.

[Monsieur B]

Ha! And he says he's 'sitting on the fence' regarding Daniel Craig as Bond?

[James Blond]

I'm still fairly new here, so help me out. What's a Moo Moo?

[Monsieur B]

Infamous troll and scoundrel.

Grrrr!

[dinovelvet]

Can you say Moo Moo...

Lessee, posting doctored photos, saying Craig is ugly, predicting the movie will flop, completely ignoring anyone's sound and reasonable arguments against his, uh, "points" in favor of repeating his initial post that nobody took seriously anyway, desperate attempts to get a rise out of Bond fans, and continued foolish and naive grasp of what the "public" wants. Damn, what gave him away?

[James Blond]

That's what I thought, thanks!

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

I'm still fairly new here, so help me out. What's a Moo Moo?

He's a troll. Apparently he's been know as many things i.e Net Geek, Bond Fan, etc on various Bond forums. He usually pops up, spams the board trying to convince people Craig is totally wrong for the role usually resorting to cnb type slander tatics before getting banned. I don't think this new recruit is moomoo, although you never know. I find it funny how those aginst Craig feel the need to keep on trying to convince us that Craig is miscast, ugly, etc. We've heard that argument and for those looking forward to seeing how the film turns out in Novemeber won't be changened. The film could go either way but I genuinly like everything I've see so far anf all these arguments is not going to stop me from checking out the film. Doesn't matter if you're pro or anti Craig/Casino Royale, if your a Bond fan you would want the film to pleasntly suprise you no matter what your expectations but I have no respect for anyone who wishes failure on this film with out even seeing it.