85 replies to this topic

[Mercator]

But his previous roles would have taken away from the Bond image. No, I don't think he should be considered for a new Bond. Let him stay with Jowker

[Daddy Bond]

But his previous roles would have taken away from the Bond image. No, I don't think he should be considered for a new Bond. Let him stay with Jowker

Without being morbid, it's obvious he won't be considered as the new James Bond.

If was still alive, I still wouldn't entertain the idea however. I just don't see the fit.

[Jackanaples]

No, I don't see him as Bond. He would have made a fantastic Robin Hood though.

[Double-0-7]

Top-notch actor, but I don't see Bond when I see him.

Of course that was true with DC until the PTS of Casino Royale!

[Zorin Industries]

But his previous roles would have taken away from the Bond image.

What Bond image is that? The image of a womanising, fast driving murderer?

And what roles were that?

A gay cowboy in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?
A drug addict in CANDY?
A benevolent knight in A KNIGHTS TALE?


Thank God Daniel Craig didn't play a gay punk in LOVE IS THE DEVIL, a drug addict in OUR FRIENDS IN THE NORTH and a benevolent uncle in THE GOLDEN COMPASS - otherwise the George Bushes of this world would have had him banned from the silver screen.

These are actors. They act a part and then move on.

[Mercator]

But his previous roles would have taken away from the Bond image.

What Bond image is that? The image of a womanising, fast driving murderer?

And what roles were that?

A gay cowboy in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?
A drug addict in CANDY?
A benevolent knight in A KNIGHTS TALE?


Thank God Daniel Craig didn't play a gay punk in LOVE IS THE DEVIL, a drug addict in OUR FRIENDS IN THE NORTH and a benevolent uncle in THE GOLDEN COMPASS - otherwise the George Bushes of this world would have had him banned from the silver screen.

These are actors. They act a part and then move on.

I have the agreement with this. That is why Daniel Craig is not a convincing Bond. As well as his appearance, he has a confused career that does not help image of Bond.

[dinovelvet]

I have the agreement with this. That is why Daniel Craig is not a convincing Bond. As well as his appearance, he has a confused career that does not help image of Bond.

I have the laughter at this.

[Zorin Industries]

But his previous roles would have taken away from the Bond image.

What Bond image is that? The image of a womanising, fast driving murderer?

And what roles were that?

A gay cowboy in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?
A drug addict in CANDY?
A benevolent knight in A KNIGHTS TALE?


Thank God Daniel Craig didn't play a gay punk in LOVE IS THE DEVIL, a drug addict in OUR FRIENDS IN THE NORTH and a benevolent uncle in THE GOLDEN COMPASS - otherwise the George Bushes of this world would have had him banned from the silver screen.

These are actors. They act a part and then move on.

I have the agreement with this. That is why Daniel Craig is not a convincing Bond. As well as his appearance, he has a confused career that does not help image of Bond.

A "confused career"....? I couldn't disagree more. He's an accomplished actor. He is not meant to be Jon-Boy Walton.

For the record, Sean Connery has played a hitman, gangster, a knife yielding murderer, Roger Moore has played a flamboyant homosexual, an assassin and a schizophrenic and Timothy Dalton has played adulterers in sex comedies.

I imagine you are a Bond fan. Right now the "confused career" of Daniel Craig is the key ingredient in keeping the franchise alive.

[Aris007]

Is Heath Ledger a little bit overestimated?

[Zorin Industries]

Is Heath Ledger a little bit overestimated?

No. He was a superb actor as his small tally of very good films will always testify.

He could have been BOND. Who knows? Five years ago no-one would have even mentioned Daniel Craig let alone cast him. Time is a strange thing in culture.

[dee-bee-five]

Is Heath Ledger a little bit overestimated?

In a word, no. For once, the hype was justified. Although I do dislike the way the bean counters in Hollywood have shamlessly used his corpse to promote The Dark Knight.

I have the agreement with this. That is why Daniel Craig is not a convincing Bond. As well as his appearance, he has a confused career that does not help image of Bond.

Yes, because Sean Connery appearing as a US sailor in the chorus South Pacific singing "There Is Nothing Like A Dame" in the 50s really buggered up his chances of being taken seriously as Bond, didn't it?

[Aris007]

Is Heath Ledger a little bit overestimated?

In a word, no. For once, the hype was justified. Although I do dislike the way the bean counters in Hollywood have shamlessly used his corpse to promote The Dark Knight.

That's what I mean! One day he's a common good actor and the other day everyone is talking about him and his wonderfull part in TDK! The film will be first in the box-office, because every curious man will go and see the new Al Pacino!

[dee-bee-five]

Is Heath Ledger a little bit overestimated?

In a word, no. For once, the hype was justified. Although I do dislike the way the bean counters in Hollywood have shamlessly used his corpse to promote The Dark Knight.

That's what I mean! One day he's a common good actor and the other day everyone is talking about him and his wonderfull part in TDK! The film will be first in the box-office, because every curious man will go and see the new Al Pacino!

I think, perhaps, he was regarded as rather more than a "common good actor" before his untimely demise.

[Aris007]

Is Heath Ledger a little bit overestimated?

In a word, no. For once, the hype was justified. Although I do dislike the way the bean counters in Hollywood have shamlessly used his corpse to promote The Dark Knight.

That's what I mean! One day he's a common good actor and the other day everyone is talking about him and his wonderfull part in TDK! The film will be first in the box-office, because every curious man will go and see the new Al Pacino!

I think, perhaps, he was regarded as rather more than a "common good actor" before his untimely demise.

Journalists, journalists, journalists, journalists, journalists, journalists, journalists, journalists, journalists, journalists.....................................................................
................................................journalists!!!

[HildebrandRarity]

If something happened to Daniel today, God forbid, and his performance for QOS was being hailed as being better than the flawless one he provided in CR, what would fans be saying? A posthumus Oscar, especially for being snubbed in Winter '06/07?

Let's go back to 2005: 99 percent of CBn were saying Ledger was all wrong for James Bond and that Eon would not bother testing him and that the race to replace Brosnan was between Clive Owen and Hugh Jackman. Only a couple of younger females here on CBn were hot on Heath for 007, if I recall. That was it.

...and when Brokeback was being buzzed, eveyone on CBn was saying "all wrong/not right" for Bond.

And now all this worthless speculation.

Let's not get all big on someone just because they're dead. Let him rest in peace, for sake.

I hate these types of threads but will allow this one rant and not respond back to any stones thrown my way as a result of this post.

Things are obviously slow around here as we wait for the next big piece of news about Quantum...but this is getting to an all time low.

[DamnCoffee]

That is why Daniel Craig is not a convincing Bond. As well as his appearance, he has a confused career that does not help image of Bond.

I highly disagree with this, mainly because of the fact Craig is probably the closest we have ever got to Flemings Bond. Also, I wouldn't say his Career was confused at all, he has some very sucessful movies under his belt... (Layer Cake, Love is the Devil, The Jacket...)

[Harmsway]

I have the agreement with this. That is why Daniel Craig is not a convincing Bond. As well as his appearance, he has a confused career that does not help image of Bond.

I have the laughter at this.

[Mercator]

That is why Daniel Craig is not a convincing Bond. As well as his appearance, he has a confused career that does not help image of Bond.

I highly disagree with this, mainly because of the fact Craig is probably the closest we have ever got to Flemings Bond. Also, I wouldn't say his Career was confused at all, he has some very sucessful movies under his belt... (Layer Cake, Love is the Devil, The Jacket...)

But Craig is not the close to Fleming Bond. He has blonde haar, is shortest, does not speak like the Engelisch gentelmen, is too tough, has confused images (playing gay and bad guys and no box office success). I have no understanding of this commentation that he is Fleming's Bond. Bond was a classy Engelisch gentelmen - Sir Moore was best, IMO.

I do not think Heath Ledger should play Bond either - no-one will have the understanding since he has played bad Jowker in The Dark Knight. We have only just changed Bond and we ken not kept for changing him.

[DamnCoffee]

That is why Daniel Craig is not a convincing Bond. As well as his appearance, he has a confused career that does not help image of Bond.

I highly disagree with this, mainly because of the fact Craig is probably the closest we have ever got to Flemings Bond. Also, I wouldn't say his Career was confused at all, he has some very sucessful movies under his belt... (Layer Cake, Love is the Devil, The Jacket...)

But Craig is not the close to Fleming Bond. He has blonde haar, is shortest, does not speak like the Engelisch gentelmen, is too tough, has confused images (playing gay and bad guys and no box office success). I have no understanding of this commentation that he is Fleming's Bond. Bond was a classy Engelisch gentelmen - Sir Moore was best, IMO.

Who cares what his hair colour is, he is incredibly English. Yes Roger was a great Bond, but he's not as Lethal as Craig, Moore charmed his way out of dangerious situations, Craig punches his way out.

[Zorin Industries]

That is why Daniel Craig is not a convincing Bond. As well as his appearance, he has a confused career that does not help image of Bond.

I highly disagree with this, mainly because of the fact Craig is probably the closest we have ever got to Flemings Bond. Also, I wouldn't say his Career was confused at all, he has some very sucessful movies under his belt... (Layer Cake, Love is the Devil, The Jacket...)

But Craig is not the close to Fleming Bond. He has blonde haar, is shortest, does not speak like the Engelisch gentelmen, is too tough, has confused images (playing gay and bad guys and no box office success).

Daniel Craig is a bloody actor for god's sake! It's playing a myriad of parts and reaching a certain career satisfaction that allows him to take career time off to play BOND (let's face it - 007 ain't Chekov). And why is "playing gay" tantamount to being "confused"....?

This is a wind-up. You are having much laughings at this one, aren't you?

[DamnCoffee]

I think Mercator needs to refer back to his signature:
EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE YOU POST MORE THAN JUST OPINION.

[Mercator]

But I didn not propose Pierce Brosnan in a Daniel Craig gunbarrel
Why so this way? I think it is bad for Bond image to play the villain and the gays because Bond should stay Bond. Is OK for an actor to do this when they are not Bond. But many of the peoples are still getting used to Dancial as Bond they need to be not confused. Is a fair idea, no? Sir Brosnan, Sir Moore and Sir Connery (the most successful having Bonds) did not play these rolls while doing the Bond. Cubby would not have approved, I think, for to say to allow actors confusion in public mind.

Edited by Mercator, 30 July 2008 - 11:51 AM.

[DamnCoffee]

Mercator, I've already explained that... in the correct thread.

[BoogieBond]

But I didn not propose Pierce Brosnan in a Daniel Craig gunbarrel
Why so this way? I think it is bad for Bond image to play the villain and the gays because Bond should stay Bond. Is OK for an actor to do this when they are not Bond. But many of the peoples are still getting used to Dancial as Bond they need to be not confused. Is a fair idea, no? Sir Brosnan, Sir Moore and Sir Connery (the most successful having Bonds) did not play these rolls while doing the Bond. Cubby would not have approved, I think, for to say to allow actors confusion in public mind.

Sir Brosnan

Pierce would be delighted with you.

Daniel is a very good actor, I prefer the word "Versatile" than "Confused"
But you're right with Moore and Connery they were great Bonds. But they played other types of characters. Connery supposedly got out of Bond because he was being typecast to a degree.

Most people can take seeing Craig as a Mossad assassin in Munich, a drug dealer in Layer Cake and then as Bond in CR and I would say they are not confused, they would just say "That's that Bond actor" or something like that. What do you think ?

Edited by BoogieBond, 30 July 2008 - 12:14 PM.

[DamnCoffee]

Why so this way? I think it is bad for Bond image to play the villain and the gays

That is probably the biggest load of BS I have ever heard in my life. A role is a role, its an actors job to act, and by acting, they have to play a number of different roles, if they play a gay role or a Villain all that does is expand thier acting ability.

When I see Craig in Casino Royale I dont ever think... "Or Na... he played a gay", I admire his acting talents. If a Bond actor plays a gay role, it's irrelevant. Same goes with a villain.

Did Ledgers role in Brokeback mountain stop you from seeing him play the 'Jowker'?

[Santa]

Why so this way? I think it is bad for Bond image to play the villain and the gays

That is probably the biggest load of BS I have ever heard in my life. A role is a role, its an actors job to act, and by acting, they have to play a number of different roles, if they play a gay role or a Villain all that does is expand thier acting ability.

When I see Craig in Casino Royale I dont ever think... "Or Na... he played a gay", I admire his acting talents. If a Bond actor plays a gay role, it's irrelevant. Same goes with a villain.

Did Ledgers role in Brokeback mountain stop you from seeing him play the 'Jowker'?

Sir Brosnan has also played gay. I think this bloke's taking the piss out of us.

[Skudor]

First instinct would be: no. That long blond hair just doesn't look Bondian

On reflection, thinking about the films he made, I see some decent (movie) Bond qualities in Casanova (Roger Moore charm for example). He could do cruel (Joker). He never struck me as particularly tall, but not short either - I'm guessing he was no shorter than Daniel 'the midget' Craig . Good looking and a better actor than Craig. I'd trust him to deliver - trust being the key word.

Had to change the tense a few times when writing this.

[Mercator]

Sir Brosnan has also played gay. I think this bloke's taking the piss out of us.

When did this? How did Sir Brosnan show a scene of piss? I've never heard of Bond actor doing these things.

Edited by Mercator, 30 July 2008 - 02:14 PM.

[Skudor]

Sir Brosnan has also played gay. I think this bloke's taking the piss out of us.

When did this? How did Sir Brosnan show a scene of this?

The Matador, if I'm not mistaken.

Roger Moore was gay in some awful comedy on a boat.

George Lazenby's career wasn't quite long enough, but he did to plenty of soft-pørn.

Connery played a dragon once. Awful. Ruined his Bond films for me forever.

Forgot about Dalton. I'm sure he's played gay in something, most likely on stage.

[Santa]

Sir Brosnan has also played gay. I think this bloke's taking the piss out of us.

When did this? How did Sir Brosnan show a scene of this?

The Matador, if I'm not mistaken.

I think I was thinking about The Fourth Protocol, but never mind that now - Mercator reckons Brozza's given us some Golden Showers on film! I must find out where that was!
This bloke is actually quite funny.