
Daniel Craig as Lucifer in Paradise Lost?
#1
Posted 06 March 2007 - 03:02 PM
http://www.darkhoriz...s07/070305q.php
To sum it up, the producer of the film likes either Craig or Ledger in the role.
Now, I don't know why Ledger would be chosen over Craig for the role (unless Craig somehow turned it down). Plus, if offered, I don't know how Craig could possibly say no. How could you pass up the opportunity to star in arguably the most famous piece of literature in Western Civilization?
Daniel Craig would make a fantastic Satan. Plus, it is the type of role that could earn him an Oscar.
#2
Posted 06 March 2007 - 03:06 PM
#3
Posted 06 March 2007 - 03:09 PM
In how many films is he going to play Satan? IMDB also has him listed as the Evil One in a project called I, Lucifer.
Didn't know that one. What is it about, exactly?
#4
Posted 06 March 2007 - 03:10 PM
#5
Posted 06 March 2007 - 03:13 PM
#6
Posted 06 March 2007 - 03:14 PM
In how many films is he going to play Satan? IMDB also has him listed as the Evil One in a project called I, Lucifer.
Didn't know that one. What is it about, exactly?
From IMDB:
Based on Glen Duncan's best seller. God is giving Satan a last shot at redemption: Satan must live out a blameless life as a human. Slick negotiator that he is, Lucifer negotiates a 'try before you buy' period. One month. London. He has no intention of taking God up on His offer. Lucifer simply wants to put a body through as much drugs, sex, and other vices as possible. But inhabiting a human body gives rise to feelings the Ol' Devil never thought possible. Could he want to take God up on the offer after all?
Ewan McGregor is supposed to co-star.
#7
Posted 06 March 2007 - 03:15 PM
#8
Posted 06 March 2007 - 03:23 PM
Dodge, I'd love to see Craig as part of the 'dirty dozen' type band in Tarantino's proposed WWII thriller Inglorious Bastards.
In how many films is he going to play Satan? IMDB also has him listed as the Evil One in a project called I, Lucifer.
Didn't know that one. What is it about, exactly?
From IMDB:Ewan McGregor is supposed to co-star.Based on Glen Duncan's best seller. God is giving Satan a last shot at redemption: Satan must live out a blameless life as a human. Slick negotiator that he is, Lucifer negotiates a 'try before you buy' period. One month. London. He has no intention of taking God up on His offer. Lucifer simply wants to put a body through as much drugs, sex, and other vices as possible. But inhabiting a human body gives rise to feelings the Ol' Devil never thought possible. Could he want to take God up on the offer after all?
Now, that there is a splendid idea--and exactly what I'm talking about as far as Dan shaking things up a bit more. Right now he has the physicality--which, let's face it, won't always be there. Does he really want or need to be the master of the downbeat film? Don't know if he'd go for the QT film, or if he's free. But serious actors play all kinds of roles and I'd urge Dan to balance the darker stuff with the lighter. Otherwise, it's gonna be: 'No, I don't want to see his new film. Life's going well and I'm happy. Don't need Dan to bring me down.'
#9
Posted 06 March 2007 - 03:26 PM
Come on, Dan. Lighten up! Will it all be Oscar Hot and heavy in between the Bond films? Can't you throw in a dazzling crime or caper flick? Something with action and humor? Gee, Connery gave us The Anderson Tapes (with a dark enough ending for you, I'm sure). Another serious Brit, Michael Caine, gave us countless films that thrilled: Get Carter, Jack the Ripper, The Eagle Has Landed, The Man Who Would Be King, etc--and that didn't keep him from doing Sleuth. Love you to pieces, Dan...but lighten up!
I do think it would be great to see Dan do a Hugh Grant-style romcom.
That really would give us the chance to see his full range.

#10
Posted 06 March 2007 - 04:08 PM
Come on, Dan. Lighten up! Will it all be Oscar Hot and heavy in between the Bond films? Can't you throw in a dazzling crime or caper flick? Something with action and humor? Gee, Connery gave us The Anderson Tapes (with a dark enough ending for you, I'm sure). Another serious Brit, Michael Caine, gave us countless films that thrilled: Get Carter, Jack the Ripper, The Eagle Has Landed, The Man Who Would Be King, etc--and that didn't keep him from doing Sleuth. Love you to pieces, Dan...but lighten up!
I do think it would be great to see Dan do a Hugh Grant-style romcom.
That really would give us the chance to see his full range.
I agree but there may be a trouble: Dan could Hugh Grant along brilliantly--then decide to decide to have his character bumped off with a Howitzer or pushed from a train platform. Just to remind us how grim life can be. Have a look at Michael Caine, Dan, also at Gene Hackman. They gave us the light and the dark...the twisted and the beautiful. They played with the whole spectrum.
#11
Posted 07 March 2007 - 01:11 AM
- http://www.cinematic...-casino-royale/
#12
Posted 07 March 2007 - 01:38 AM
#13
Posted 07 March 2007 - 02:26 AM
Hasn't Brosnan got the market cornered on those roles? Besides, it's not all Oscar bait. He has The Invasion coming out, a commercial sci-fi thriller.Come on, Dan. Lighten up! Will it all be Oscar Hot and heavy in between the Bond films? Can't you throw in a dazzling crime or caper flick? Something with action and humor? Gee, Connery gave us The Anderson Tapes (with a dark enough ending for you, I'm sure). Another serious Brit, Michael Caine, gave us countless films that thrilled: Get Carter, Jack the Ripper, The Eagle Has Landed, The Man Who Would Be King, etc--and that didn't keep him from doing Sleuth. Love you to pieces, Dan...but lighten up!
Anyways, isn't Craig already considered Satan in some circles, ones with the same letters as this site?

#14
Posted 07 March 2007 - 02:50 AM
I'm Satan, and I don't want DC to play me because he's blond and ugly. He'll ruin the Satan franchise.

Oh, hang on a minute...


Did you see Russell Crowe in A Good Year?I do think it would be great to see Dan do a Hugh Grant-style romcom.
That really would give us the chance to see his full range.


#15
Posted 07 March 2007 - 05:25 AM

Their best bet with the script would have been maintaining as much of Milton's dialogue as possible, since it's so distinctive (and probably unique) and would give the film a stand-alone tone that would raise it above the level of a mere fantasy "epic." They also have their work cut out for them in trying to design what the universe looked like before Creation (the fall of Lucifer occurs beforehand, so without Earth as a frame of reference, where does everything take place?).
BTW, I put "epic" in quotes here because many of the large-scale films released recently, like "Troy," "Alexander," etc., are not real epic films. A real epic film is something like "Spartacus" or "Lawrence of Arabia" (even "Gone With the Wind"): a grand vision of an entire world. Epic films do not depend on the number of extras hired, nor the number of battle scenes.
#16
Posted 07 March 2007 - 09:38 AM
I, Lucifer sounds quite good though. I'd see it.
#17
Posted 07 March 2007 - 02:25 PM
They're going to have a hell of a time finding someone to play God. And this is a portrayal in all seriousness, so it's not like casting Morgan Freeman in "Bruce Almighty." There's also a slightly less problematic casting decision in finding someone to play the Christ, before he's incarnated as Jesus. Everything could probably be cast to most people's satisfaction, but those two are going to be difficult.
#18
Posted 07 March 2007 - 02:54 PM
DC would be a fantastic Satan, but after reading what the script of "Paradise Lost" might entail, I'd bet more money on "I, Lucifer" for Oscar bait. PL is one of my favorite books, but I'm not criticizing it before I see anything because I'm an anti-adaptation book fanfreak. It's just that, according to this report, the script smacked of "Troy"-ish pseudo-epic-style, focusing on battle scenes, rather than on the chief themes of the epic story, such as the nature of God (e.g. if He's so omnipotent, why did He let Lucifer's conspiracy escalate into all-out war?), and the reasons for Creation (usually explained because so many angels fell, humans were meant to be something of a replacement as worshippers, because God is a jealous God). It's also distressing to read that they might scale back the roles of Adam and Eve because they're naked and they don't want to piss too many people off (but lots of violence is okay, apparently
).
Their best bet with the script would have been maintaining as much of Milton's dialogue as possible, since it's so distinctive (and probably unique) and would give the film a stand-alone tone that would raise it above the level of a mere fantasy "epic." They also have their work cut out for them in trying to design what the universe looked like before Creation (the fall of Lucifer occurs beforehand, so without Earth as a frame of reference, where does everything take place?).
BTW, I put "epic" in quotes here because many of the large-scale films released recently, like "Troy," "Alexander," etc., are not real epic films. A real epic film is something like "Spartacus" or "Lawrence of Arabia" (even "Gone With the Wind"): a grand vision of an entire world. Epic films do not depend on the number of extras hired, nor the number of battle scenes.
Good points, Mamadou. But reports indicate that they're planning to ditch all the poetry in favor of the battles/fx. That's a little like doing Shakespeare without all the bothersome dialogue, right? Be nice if Frank Miller could do a comic of it first. Or maybe they'll work from the Cliff Notes. I hope if Dan's considering this he smells the sulfur in the air and checks the producers' feet to see if they're cloven.
#19
Posted 07 March 2007 - 03:22 PM
#20
Posted 07 March 2007 - 09:37 PM
#21
Posted 07 March 2007 - 11:06 PM
DC would be a fantastic Satan, but after reading what the script of "Paradise Lost" might entail, I'd bet more money on "I, Lucifer" for Oscar bait. PL is one of my favorite books, but I'm not criticizing it before I see anything because I'm an anti-adaptation book fanfreak. It's just that, according to this report, the script smacked of "Troy"-ish pseudo-epic-style, focusing on battle scenes, rather than on the chief themes of the epic story, such as the nature of God (e.g. if He's so omnipotent, why did He let Lucifer's conspiracy escalate into all-out war?), and the reasons for Creation (usually explained because so many angels fell, humans were meant to be something of a replacement as worshippers, because God is a jealous God). It's also distressing to read that they might scale back the roles of Adam and Eve because they're naked and they don't want to piss too many people off (but lots of violence is okay, apparently
).
Their best bet with the script would have been maintaining as much of Milton's dialogue as possible, since it's so distinctive (and probably unique) and would give the film a stand-alone tone that would raise it above the level of a mere fantasy "epic." They also have their work cut out for them in trying to design what the universe looked like before Creation (the fall of Lucifer occurs beforehand, so without Earth as a frame of reference, where does everything take place?).
BTW, I put "epic" in quotes here because many of the large-scale films released recently, like "Troy," "Alexander," etc., are not real epic films. A real epic film is something like "Spartacus" or "Lawrence of Arabia" (even "Gone With the Wind"): a grand vision of an entire world. Epic films do not depend on the number of extras hired, nor the number of battle scenes.
Good points, Mamadou. But reports indicate that they're planning to ditch all the poetry in favor of the battles/fx. That's a little like doing Shakespeare without all the bothersome dialogue, right? Be nice if Frank Miller could do a comic of it first. Or maybe they'll work from the Cliff Notes. I hope if Dan's considering this he smells the sulfur in the air and checks the producers' feet to see if they're cloven.
Very true. And I know in my heart of hearts that they won't do the best thing if it means sacrificing a dollar in profit. I definitely know they don't have the guts to turn PL into the best film it can be.
Though I suppose an argument can be made that PL shouldn't be made into a film at all.
#22
Posted 08 March 2007 - 01:50 AM
Anyway, Craig as Lucifer would be interesting. Even though the rest of the film would undoubtedly be an affront to my love for Milton's epic poem (it sounds like they're trying to make LORD OF THE RINGS with angels and demons), I would sit through it to see him tackle the role.