80 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

Thanks Blonde Bond

They all look great, isnt it funny, with this film you can have a bunch of images and not one of them has to be an action picture? Seems every other image we got out of the Brosnan films was a picture of him holding some kind of gun.

[Skudor]

Does anyone else keep seeing our resident Casino Royale extra in the pics? I'm sure I spotted him in the trailer as well.

[Fletch]

Please define "great" as in "great new stills". Are we looking at the same pictures?

For me there is such cognitive disonance with Craig as Bond..he simply does not look the part for me. It's akin to casting Philip Seymour Hoffman as Zorro, or, say Benecio Del Toro plays Cary Grant in "The Cary Grant Story". How about we cast Danny DeVito as Rocky Balboa in a "reboot" of that series while we're at it?

Craig simply "looks wrong, way wrong" IMO to portray a cinematic icon who, for the past 44 years, has come to be expected to be tall, dark, handsome. IMO, Craig is none of these so I automatically discount him as Bond. IMO, As a Bond villian, Craig's your man...

Del Toro, Hoffman are great actors, perhaps, but, ahem, NOT what many might deem as (traditionally) good looking, so casting them as characters or persons known for good looks, finesse, cool seems as daft to me as casting Craig as a character routinely described as "charming" "dashing", "sexy", "sophisticated", "suave", "handsome"----descriptions all often applied to the cinematic James Bond.

IMO DC as 007 is as inane as casting Adrian Brody as Indiana Jones, or Kathy Bates as Lara Croft..These are actors who I feel are not at all suited to play movie icons, or pop culture characters, or at least pop icon characters, let alone those known for sex appeal.

As this is commanderbond.net I will expect either massive flame replies or, more likely, readers ignoring my post. It seems there are so few here who are uncomfortable w/Craig as Bond, who are, increduously to me, UNconcerned with the decisions MGW and BB have made, that it is uncomfortable to post here as one of the minority who feels The Emperor Has No Clothes.

However, I too, am a "true Bond fan" (I have all the Fleming books, own all the films, have collected "Bond trinkets" for years, have loved Bond films for past 28 years---since I first saw a Bond movie, have even done some "Bond sightseeing", traveling to locations simply because they were in a bond movie).

I am no less a fan.

I simply feel Craig is all wrong, and I am very saddened that I won't be able to enjoy the new "Bond" film owing to what I consider a tragically miscast, utterly wrong choice of lead actor. "Great" stills or not...for me, it's another sad day to be a James Bond fan.

Edited by Fletch, 23 September 2006 - 02:47 AM.

[Vauxhall]

Unless my eyes are starting to go, I don't think anyone can look at this picture and doubt Daniel Craig's hair colour.

[Fletch]

Yup, it's a Kevin Bacon, circa "Footloose" cut, even down to the dirty-blonde highlights. Just screams "Dashing James Bond" to me...

Edited by Fletch, 23 September 2006 - 03:44 AM.

[Skudor]

Please define "great" as in "great new stills". Are we looking at the same pictures?

For me there is such cognitive disonance with Craig as Bond..he simply does not look the part for me. It's akin to casting Philip Seymour Hoffman as Zorro, or, say Benecio Del Toro plays Cary Grant in "The Cary Grant Story". How about we cast Danny DeVito as Rocky Balboa in a "reboot" of that series while we're at it?

Craig simply "looks wrong, way wrong" IMO to portray a cinematic icon who, for the past 44 years, has come to be expected to be tall, dark, handsome. IMO, Craig is none of these so I automatically discount him as Bond. IMO, As a Bond villian, Craig's your man...

Del Toro, Hoffman are great actors, perhaps, but, ahem, NOT what many might deem as (traditionally) good looking, so casting them as characters or persons known for good looks, finesse, cool seems as daft to me as casting Craig as a character routinely described as "charming" "dashing", "sexy", "sophisticated", "suave", "handsome"----descriptions all often applied to the cinematic James Bond.

IMO DC as 007 is as inane as casting Adrian Brody as Indiana Jones, or Kathy Bates as Lara Croft..These are actors who I feel are not at all suited to play movie icons, or pop culture characters, or at least pop icon characters, let alone those known for sex appeal.

As this is commanderbond.net I will expect either massive flame replies or, more likely, readers ignoring my post. It seems there are so few here who are uncomfortable w/Craig as Bond, who are, increduously to me, UNconcerned with the decisions MGW and BB have made, that it is uncomfortable to post here as one of the minority who feels The Emperor Has No Clothes.

However, I too, am a "true Bond fan" (I have all the Fleming books, own all the films, have collected "Bond trinkets" for years, have loved Bond films for past 28 years---since I first saw a Bond movie, have even done some "Bond sightseeing", traveling to locations simply because they were in a bond movie).

I am no less a fan.

I simply feel Craig is all wrong, and I am very saddened that I won't be able to enjoy the new "Bond" film owing to what I consider a tragically miscast, utterly wrong choice of lead actor. "Great" stills or not...for me, it's another sad day to be a James Bond fan.

I just hope you will enjoy the movie when it comes out


Craig isn't classically handsome. That doesn't mean he can't be a good Bond. Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it can't be done and can't be good.

I can empathise with your scepticism - but I really don't think it's that big an issue. They are trying something new and fresh and after 20 films I applaud them for that.

[DamnCoffee]

It dosent matter if Craig is not that good looking (personally i think he look very sophisticated and good looking for bond) but flemings bond isn't supposed to be really sexy - just cold and gritty and as fleming said "Rugged good looks" which is exactly wat Craig has

[DamnCoffee]

Two More released

http://outnow.ch/Med...-...=1024&h=678

http://outnow.ch/Med...-...=1400&h=929

[Loomis]

Please define "great" as in "great new stills". Are we looking at the same pictures?

For me there is such cognitive disonance with Craig as Bond..he simply does not look the part for me. It's akin to casting Philip Seymour Hoffman as Zorro, or, say Benecio Del Toro plays Cary Grant in "The Cary Grant Story". How about we cast Danny DeVito as Rocky Balboa in a "reboot" of that series while we're at it?

Craig simply "looks wrong, way wrong" IMO to portray a cinematic icon who, for the past 44 years, has come to be expected to be tall, dark, handsome. IMO, Craig is none of these so I automatically discount him as Bond. IMO, As a Bond villian, Craig's your man...

Del Toro, Hoffman are great actors, perhaps, but, ahem, NOT what many might deem as (traditionally) good looking, so casting them as characters or persons known for good looks, finesse, cool seems as daft to me as casting Craig as a character routinely described as "charming" "dashing", "sexy", "sophisticated", "suave", "handsome"----descriptions all often applied to the cinematic James Bond.

IMO DC as 007 is as inane as casting Adrian Brody as Indiana Jones, or Kathy Bates as Lara Croft..These are actors who I feel are not at all suited to play movie icons, or pop culture characters, or at least pop icon characters, let alone those known for sex appeal.

As this is commanderbond.net I will expect either massive flame replies or, more likely, readers ignoring my post. It seems there are so few here who are uncomfortable w/Craig as Bond, who are, increduously to me, UNconcerned with the decisions MGW and BB have made, that it is uncomfortable to post here as one of the minority who feels The Emperor Has No Clothes.

However, I too, am a "true Bond fan" (I have all the Fleming books, own all the films, have collected "Bond trinkets" for years, have loved Bond films for past 28 years---since I first saw a Bond movie, have even done some "Bond sightseeing", traveling to locations simply because they were in a bond movie).

I am no less a fan.

I simply feel Craig is all wrong, and I am very saddened that I won't be able to enjoy the new "Bond" film owing to what I consider a tragically miscast, utterly wrong choice of lead actor. "Great" stills or not...for me, it's another sad day to be a James Bond fan.

Well, no one who makes his points so well and so politely deserves to be flamed.

I'm a Craig/CR supporter, broadly speaking, but the one thing I don't understand about Craig's Bond look is this: why does his hair have to be so short and spikey? It's perfectly possible for Craig to look good - see much of LAYER CAKE, in which his hair is still short, and, yes, he's still blond, but he doesn't have those ghastly spikes and tufts, and looks, to me at least, considerably more "Bondian". And before anyone points out that the Bond of CR has just left the armed forces, his haircut would still not have to be so severe.

James Bond with spikey hair, people.

Oh, well. I'm sure they know what they're doing, though, and it'll hardly ruin the film, but, still.... If we're talking about cognitive dissonance, I'm finding that accepting Craig as Bond is a piece of cake compared to accepting "You Know My Name" as a Bond song.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Two More released

http://outnow.ch/Med...-...=1024&h=678

http://outnow.ch/Med...-...=1400&h=929

I absolutely LOVE that pic of Eva!!

[JimmyBond]

Two More released

http://outnow.ch/Med...-...=1024&h=678

http://outnow.ch/Med...-...=1400&h=929

I absolutely LOVE that pic of Eva!!

Really? I think it's rather unflattering myself. She looks to pale in the picture, plus her ears look too big, oh well, it's just one picture. I think she looks great in all the others I've seen.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Two More released

http://outnow.ch/Med...-...=1024&h=678

http://outnow.ch/Med...-...=1400&h=929

I absolutely LOVE that pic of Eva!!

Really? I think it's rather unflattering myself. She looks to pale in the picture, plus her ears look too big, oh well, it's just one picture. I think she looks great in all the others I've seen.

It's the eyes, Jimmy...

[JimmyBond]

Took another loook...sorry, still not working for me.

[CM007]

Thanks Blonde Bond

They all look great, isnt it funny, with this film you can have a bunch of images and not one of them has to be an action picture? Seems every other image we got out of the Brosnan films was a picture of him holding some kind of gun.

Funny that....Most of the publicity pics of Craig is when he

[JimmyBond]

[quote name='CM007' post='612723' date='23 September 2006 - 14:25']



Funny that....Most of the publicity pics of Craig is when he

[blueman]

Please define "great" as in "great new stills". Are we looking at the same pictures?

For me there is such cognitive disonance with Craig as Bond..he simply does not look the part for me. It's akin to casting Philip Seymour Hoffman as Zorro, or, say Benecio Del Toro plays Cary Grant in "The Cary Grant Story". How about we cast Danny DeVito as Rocky Balboa in a "reboot" of that series while we're at it?

Craig simply "looks wrong, way wrong" IMO to portray a cinematic icon who, for the past 44 years, has come to be expected to be tall, dark, handsome. IMO, Craig is none of these so I automatically discount him as Bond. IMO, As a Bond villian, Craig's your man...

Del Toro, Hoffman are great actors, perhaps, but, ahem, NOT what many might deem as (traditionally) good looking, so casting them as characters or persons known for good looks, finesse, cool seems as daft to me as casting Craig as a character routinely described as "charming" "dashing", "sexy", "sophisticated", "suave", "handsome"----descriptions all often applied to the cinematic James Bond.

IMO DC as 007 is as inane as casting Adrian Brody as Indiana Jones, or Kathy Bates as Lara Croft..These are actors who I feel are not at all suited to play movie icons, or pop culture characters, or at least pop icon characters, let alone those known for sex appeal.

As this is commanderbond.net I will expect either massive flame replies or, more likely, readers ignoring my post. It seems there are so few here who are uncomfortable w/Craig as Bond, who are, increduously to me, UNconcerned with the decisions MGW and BB have made, that it is uncomfortable to post here as one of the minority who feels The Emperor Has No Clothes.

However, I too, am a "true Bond fan" (I have all the Fleming books, own all the films, have collected "Bond trinkets" for years, have loved Bond films for past 28 years---since I first saw a Bond movie, have even done some "Bond sightseeing", traveling to locations simply because they were in a bond movie).

I am no less a fan.

I simply feel Craig is all wrong, and I am very saddened that I won't be able to enjoy the new "Bond" film owing to what I consider a tragically miscast, utterly wrong choice of lead actor. "Great" stills or not...for me, it's another sad day to be a James Bond fan.

Totally can understand your feelings. It's been a sad day to be a Bond fan for me for going on 37 years...I mean the last 20 years or so why bother?

Not quite sure what we're gonna get with CR, but I like Craig in the role in my head, so I'm looking forward to seeing what's what. Then again, I think of Bond not as a list of physical attributes, but more of a presence: I may not be able to describe it, but I know it when I see it. And hoping to see it with Craig in CR. I went to all those other "Bond" films with the same expectation, maybe not as hopeful about it but even with someone whom I thought was terribly miscast as Bond (Brosnan, Moore), or stuck with the most unimaginative director yet born (Dalton with Glen), I was still always hopeful for at least a decent Bond moment in there somewhere...didn't always get one, but whatever. There's always the next film...or actor, in this case I guess, if Craig is that anti-Bond for you. From my POV, it's just a part of being a fan of the series, if that doesn't sound too wacked, putting up with poor decisions on the part of the filmmakers yet always hoping they come around.

Welcome to my world.

[DamnCoffee]

there is only one (and that's Craig's Empire Magazine cover shot).

"...Two"

[SecretAgentFan]

Please define "great" as in "great new stills". Are we looking at the same pictures?

For me there is such cognitive disonance with Craig as Bond..he simply does not look the part for me. It's akin to casting Philip Seymour Hoffman as Zorro, or, say Benecio Del Toro plays Cary Grant in "The Cary Grant Story". How about we cast Danny DeVito as Rocky Balboa in a "reboot" of that series while we're at it?

Craig simply "looks wrong, way wrong" IMO to portray a cinematic icon who, for the past 44 years, has come to be expected to be tall, dark, handsome. IMO, Craig is none of these so I automatically discount him as Bond. IMO, As a Bond villian, Craig's your man...

Del Toro, Hoffman are great actors, perhaps, but, ahem, NOT what many might deem as (traditionally) good looking, so casting them as characters or persons known for good looks, finesse, cool seems as daft to me as casting Craig as a character routinely described as "charming" "dashing", "sexy", "sophisticated", "suave", "handsome"----descriptions all often applied to the cinematic James Bond.

IMO DC as 007 is as inane as casting Adrian Brody as Indiana Jones, or Kathy Bates as Lara Croft..These are actors who I feel are not at all suited to play movie icons, or pop culture characters, or at least pop icon characters, let alone those known for sex appeal.

As this is commanderbond.net I will expect either massive flame replies or, more likely, readers ignoring my post. It seems there are so few here who are uncomfortable w/Craig as Bond, who are, increduously to me, UNconcerned with the decisions MGW and BB have made, that it is uncomfortable to post here as one of the minority who feels The Emperor Has No Clothes.

However, I too, am a "true Bond fan" (I have all the Fleming books, own all the films, have collected "Bond trinkets" for years, have loved Bond films for past 28 years---since I first saw a Bond movie, have even done some "Bond sightseeing", traveling to locations simply because they were in a bond movie).

I am no less a fan.

I simply feel Craig is all wrong, and I am very saddened that I won't be able to enjoy the new "Bond" film owing to what I consider a tragically miscast, utterly wrong choice of lead actor. "Great" stills or not...for me, it's another sad day to be a James Bond fan.

Well, no one who makes his points so well and so politely deserves to be flamed.

I'm a Craig/CR supporter, broadly speaking, but the one thing I don't understand about Craig's Bond look is this: why does his hair have to be so short and spikey? It's perfectly possible for Craig to look good - see much of LAYER CAKE, in which his hair is still short, and, yes, he's still blond, but he doesn't have those ghastly spikes and tufts, and looks, to me at least, considerably more "Bondian". And before anyone points out that the Bond of CR has just left the armed forces, his haircut would still not have to be so severe.

James Bond with spikey hair, people.

Oh, well. I'm sure they know what they're doing, though, and it'll hardly ruin the film, but, still.... If we're talking about cognitive dissonance, I'm finding that accepting Craig as Bond is a piece of cake compared to accepting "You Know My Name" as a Bond song.

Is it easier to accept James Bond with a bad hairpiece (TB, YOLT, DAF) than with spikey hair?

[Loomis]

Yes, it is. All joking aside, it is easier.

[Orion]

i like the one of him looking over the balcony

[manfromjapan]

Ditto everybody. We need this film now!!!
Thanks for those stills man.
Craig is gonna be brilliant or suck like my mama's vacuum. I suspect the former!!

[jaguar007]

Please define "great" as in "great new stills". Are we looking at the same pictures?

For me there is such cognitive disonance with Craig as Bond..he simply does not look the part for me. It's akin to casting Philip Seymour Hoffman as Zorro, or, say Benecio Del Toro plays Cary Grant in "The Cary Grant Story". How about we cast Danny DeVito as Rocky Balboa in a "reboot" of that series while we're at it?

Craig simply "looks wrong, way wrong" IMO to portray a cinematic icon who, for the past 44 years, has come to be expected to be tall, dark, handsome. IMO, Craig is none of these so I automatically discount him as Bond. IMO, As a Bond villian, Craig's your man...

Del Toro, Hoffman are great actors, perhaps, but, ahem, NOT what many might deem as (traditionally) good looking, so casting them as characters or persons known for good looks, finesse, cool seems as daft to me as casting Craig as a character routinely described as "charming" "dashing", "sexy", "sophisticated", "suave", "handsome"----descriptions all often applied to the cinematic James Bond.

IMO DC as 007 is as inane as casting Adrian Brody as Indiana Jones, or Kathy Bates as Lara Croft..These are actors who I feel are not at all suited to play movie icons, or pop culture characters, or at least pop icon characters, let alone those known for sex appeal.

As this is commanderbond.net I will expect either massive flame replies or, more likely, readers ignoring my post. It seems there are so few here who are uncomfortable w/Craig as Bond, who are, increduously to me, UNconcerned with the decisions MGW and BB have made, that it is uncomfortable to post here as one of the minority who feels The Emperor Has No Clothes.

However, I too, am a "true Bond fan" (I have all the Fleming books, own all the films, have collected "Bond trinkets" for years, have loved Bond films for past 28 years---since I first saw a Bond movie, have even done some "Bond sightseeing", traveling to locations simply because they were in a bond movie).

I am no less a fan.

I simply feel Craig is all wrong, and I am very saddened that I won't be able to enjoy the new "Bond" film owing to what I consider a tragically miscast, utterly wrong choice of lead actor. "Great" stills or not...for me, it's another sad day to be a James Bond fan.

Totally can understand your feelings. It's been a sad day to be a Bond fan for me for going on 37 years...I mean the last 20 years or so why bother?

Not quite sure what we're gonna get with CR, but I like Craig in the role in my head, so I'm looking forward to seeing what's what. Then again, I think of Bond not as a list of physical attributes, but more of a presence: I may not be able to describe it, but I know it when I see it. And hoping to see it with Craig in CR. I went to all those other "Bond" films with the same expectation, maybe not as hopeful about it but even with someone whom I thought was terribly miscast as Bond (Brosnan, Moore), or stuck with the most unimaginative director yet born (Dalton with Glen), I was still always hopeful for at least a decent Bond moment in there somewhere...didn't always get one, but whatever. There's always the next film...or actor, in this case I guess, if Craig is that anti-Bond for you. From my POV, it's just a part of being a fan of the series, if that doesn't sound too wacked, putting up with poor decisions on the part of the filmmakers yet always hoping they come around.

Welcome to my world.

I don't think I could have said it better myself. I do have to agree with Loomis about the spikey hair, I wish it were a tad longer as well, however I feel that Craig has the perfect type of face for Bond. As much as I like Moore and Brosnan (loved The Saint and Remington Steele), I thought both of them were too pretty to be Bond. Fleming described BOnd as having rather cruel looks, Connery, Dalton and Craig all have that rugged cruel look that Fleming described.

[stone cold]

These photos are incredible.. the one of Bond walking through the casino and the one standing next to the door with the gun are 2 of the best yet no question. Sony need to get these photos out there. He looks intense, commited, dangerous, cool as and sexy as hell. Its been a while since you could describe Bond like that. We've seen Craigs screen presence in Layer Cake and Munich but he just looks supernova in this. I genuinely believe that Craig on the big screen in theatres will bring those who doubt him around. He's not an easy actor to take in instantly but i think this guys X factor is off the scale. Many people my age can see it ( 20s ), male and female. - and again I just hope when i read blanket negativity of him that the doubting guys can be turned round once they have actually seen the film. I so hope he pulls it off and knocks one out of the park. I believe in him strongly, and thats apart from the class with which he has handled this year, for he has commited to Bond in a way which deserves our admiration. He seems to have that kind of male grace, vulnerability, raw instinct, a hostile cool that characterises the best work of Russel Crowe, Steve McQueen , Connery's Bond and even Harrison Ford on his good days ( Indiana Jones ), all rolled into one.

Craig just looks electrifying in these.. somewhere between the Bond in the Casino Royale book and Craig there seems in my mind at least , to be something very close to my ultimate Bond, i find it sad that someone can dismiss craig almost solely on the basis that he doesnt look like a catalogue male model, or a cartoon image of bond, or almost certainly their own view of Bond as simply an something akin to an aspirational cypher of mainstream male attractiveness, a boys own action hero. I think this demonstates the ( lucrative ) damage that the Brosnan era did to the true Bond legend/image by making it into a shallow lightweight overblown Bond cartoon . Ok i admit that EON took a big risk messing with this ( seemingly ) essential tenet of the franchise.. but to me, the best of Bond was never about this image. Thank God EON/Sony took this risk - they can afford to. More of the same or simply drafting in a archytypal 'young' Bond piece of Hollywood boybait would have killed the franchise - i think CR will make less money than recent Bonds but only because it is of a higher quality, more serious and more dangerous. Seems a worthwhile hit to take in the name of saving Bond from a slow death, from an outdated wannabe blockbuster dinosaur belonging to last century. Only by bravely going for the best, for credibility, believabily and realness in the story and cast have they manages to make Bond mean something again.
Hollywood is changing - what they are doing with CR is incredibly smart on many levels. I also think somewhere in the torn intensity and drive of the theme song lyrics is this new Bond.. a tough ultra masculine spy brought to his knees - broken, vulnerable, cornered, then rising again - more deadly and beautiful than ever. for an icon to be reborn before us we need to see him fall then rise from the ashes. This is the most powerful origin story of all. Its what Casino Royale is about. I can feel it in this movie - and i bet when we see this story, this Bond, hear him say those immortal lines at the end of the film, and that music.. we will walk out of this film on a high like no other.

Edited by stone cold, 24 September 2006 - 07:33 PM.

[Tuxedo]

Fletch, I accept your point of view though I don

[MovieMaestro]

Yeah, what is up with the severe, spikey hair? Fleming describes him pretty clearly as having longer hair (except in Diamonds are Forever where he gets it cut for a mission). Is the haircut an effort to make Craig look younger?

[SecretAgentFan]

[quote name='Tuxedo' post='613756' date='25 September 2006 - 06:51']
Fletch, I accept your point of view though I don

[elvis-the-burgerking]

All the pictures are fantastic just a shame we have to wait till november for the real thing.

[avl]

[quote name='SecretAgentFan' post='613766' date='25 September 2006 - 08:46']
[quote name='Tuxedo' post='613756' date='25 September 2006 - 06:51']
Fletch, I accept your point of view though I don

[Matt_13]

That ones is my fav of the new pics.

[Jericho_One]

That ones is my fav of the new pics.

Mine too. Bond all the way.