Although, it goes without saying that such thoughts are not those of AJB007.co.uk in any way. They are the thoughts of one member who has voiced them in a parodical way.
a) No, poor press conference doesn't equal bad Bond, wasn't the point I was making. Just responding to those saying, gee, can't blame him for being overwhelmed etc etc
b) Blond hair? Not saying he should have got it cut or dyed etc. More that they hadn't established whether he would dye it or not in their many discussions, apparently. But maybe I'm wrong on that.
c) Re Babs, no I'm not suggesting an actual ding dong, just that, well, it's a bit partial on her part...
that is all...
Then what was the sense in the change of actor? There was every opportunity for a change of tone and direction within the Bond formula, as has been proven with Roger Moore (FYEO) and Timothy Dalton (LTK).
Do you genuinely believe that Eon and Sony are not in the game of making box office returns? This whole saga has been about Eon's ego vs. Pierce Brosnan's popularity, and Eon decided enough was enough and they needed to exert some form of control and send the message that Bond is bigger than any jobbing actor that plays him.
I genuinely believe that Sony have the Bond franchise under their biggest microscope at the moment, and they will close in for the kill unless Casino Royale is spectacular DAD box-office.
There was a change of actor because it was deemed, by Eon, that Brosnan was too old.
Of course Eon and Sony want good box-office returns and Casino Royale is guaranteed to make money.
Sony will close in for the kill ? Don't be stupid, do you really think that Sony will close the franchise because of one poor film ? Sony don't even own a controling portion of Eon's stock.
Well, stupid old me. I guess passions are running high even with the moderators.
Let me clarify :-
Sony want the Bond franchise, and always have. What happens when somebody wants something is that they pretend to be friends intitially, cosy up, learn strengths and weaknesses, and just prod away. They then wait until someone is vulnerable and strike. So what if they don't hold controlling interest, they buy it from or exert influence on those that do, they apply pressure via external forces, wear down their prey. If Eon are so powerful, why did they need Sony's approval on who to cast? Why did Eon let Sony\MGM kill the Jinx movie that they worked so hard on? The reason is that Eon are extremely reliant on studio backing, and their current backer is in a win win situation. If Eon do well, Sony get their payday and half the credit, if they don't they blame Eon and use it as a large stick to begin the beatings and dismantlings with, because Eon would be financially stretched by a Bond flop and without total support from their biggest assets, their Bond fans, who would be calling for change at the top.
This is what happens in big business, and film-making is the biggest, nastiest, dirtiest, cut-throat business of all.
I must say I don't know why people keep saying the Bond movies have to change or it will be the end. The last four Bond movies were hugely succesful, each movie more succesful than the preceeding one. What evidence do we have that the movies, or the character, are losing their popularity....None! The general movie going public has endorsed the Bond movies with their hard earned money
That's the thing that amazes me about Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli: every 10-12 years they get this idea in their heads that the series is in trouble, that it needs to be revitalized and that they have to go "darker and grittier"; but there is no hard data to back this up at all. I don't know if its ego or a misguided belief that Bond should be some serious cinematic character but this line of thinking is just plain wrong.
Yes, a small and sometimes vocal percentage (the hardcore Bond fans) complain about the far out plots and childish quips. But they are the minority; the general public eats that kind of Bond movie up. And when the producers go "back to basics" Bond always suffers at the box office.
I hope I'm wrong, but I think Casino Royale will fail for two reasons:
While I have nothing against Daniel Craig, he reminds me a lot of Timothy Dalton in terms of his comfort level with the press (or lack thereof) and based on his previous roles, I just don't think he can pull off the witty side of Bond that the average fan seems to enjoy. Dalton had the same problem and that was one of the reasons the casual fan rejected him. Also, the way in which Brosnan was passed aside has created a lot of bad blood with a lot of fans and since Craig is his successor, I think he will bear the brunt of that (I know it isn't fair, but that's life). In short, it's Lazenby coming on after Connery all over again. Lazenby never really got a fair shake and I can see the same thing happening to Craig. I think a lot of the negativity we've seen so far can be traced to this.
From what I've heard so far, the plot really doesn't sound all that much "fun" to me. In other words, the movie sounds very different from the typical Bond formula that the average fan is familiar and comfortable with. The last movie to really deviate from the formula was License to Kill and we know how that ended up.
Giving the average fan such a radically different Bond in such an (apparently) different kind of Bond movie is a very big risk. In the end, I don't think it will pay off, especially here in America.
Of course Eon and Sony want good box-office returns and Casino Royale is guaranteed to make money.
It isn't enough to make money, they 'must' get truly excellent Box Office returns. Do you really think that if Casino Royale limps to a £250 million box office it will be seen as a success because it made money? Especially after DAD did $450m. I think I read somewhere that Sony have approved a $160 million budget for CR, and anything less than a $400 million World Wide Box Office would be seen as a failure. Sony is a business, and their investors will demand the absolute best return on their MGM investment, of which the Bond deal is the biggest assett.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Hopefully they will rise to the challenge, and do it right.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
You'll be happy to hear I've purchased your book on AJB etiquette on E-Bay (it's selling like hotcakes!), and I will use it to guide me in future exchanges. I'm convinced I've offended my last member, and I thank you for your guidance in this matter.
Back to topic: I downloaded the 9+ MB video hi-light file from MI6 of Craig's press conference, which was actually pretty cool, and (although brief) more than ten times what I saw on Headline News on Friday morning.
Craig's voice is very good; that's a plus IMO. Panache is a must, and I got the impression he can muster that. I'm interested to see what they do to manage his on-screen image---not just hair color, but cut as well. I'm also encouraged that we will actually learn the ingredients of the martini. Perhaps Craig will make his mark as the Fleming-written fastidious Bond. That could be interesting.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
You'll be happy to hear I've purchased your book on AJB etiquette on E-Bay (it's selling like hotcakes!), and I will use it to guide me in future exchanges. I'm convinced I've offended my last member, and I thank you for your guidance in this matter.
Back to topic: I downloaded the 9+ MB video hi-light file from MI6 of Craig's press conference, which was actually pretty cool, and (although brief) more than ten times what I saw on Headline News on Friday morning.
Craig's voice is very good; that's a plus IMO. Panache is a must, and I got the impression he can muster that. I'm interested to see what they do to manage his on-screen image---not just hair color, but cut as well. I'm also encouraged that we will actually learn the ingredients of the martini. Perhaps Craig will make his mark as the Fleming-written fastidious Bond. That could be interesting.
You truly are ambiguous.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Exactly.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
a) No, poor press conference doesn't equal bad Bond, wasn't the point I was making. Just responding to those saying, gee, can't blame him for being overwhelmed etc etc
b) Blond hair? Not saying he should have got it cut or dyed etc. More that they hadn't established whether he would dye it or not in their many discussions, apparently. But maybe I'm wrong on that.
c) Re Babs, no I'm not suggesting an actual ding dong, just that, well, it's a bit partial on her part...
that is all...
Do you know, I think I am a DC defender ... but you are not I also would say that I wasn't terribly sure of his appointment, but during the press conference I found him pretty impressive. Whether this is my traditional Britisher attitude of supporting the underdog who I feel has had some unfairly negative things said of him I can't be sure.
As for the press conference, I think he was pretty charming, down to earth and there were no 'prepared' answers. I have attended a great many press conferences in my time and considering the stakes, I think you saw a very natural performer. Too often a press conference becomes an opportunity to trot out all the carefully constructed answers - answers not by the actor but written by some PR executive with all the right words to illicit a controlled response from the audience (spin IOW)
Upon repeat viewing (thanks to MI6) it has reinforced my thought that DC was actually pretty good. He has my backing.
Regarding (c), that is neither of our businesses ...
Xenia2nd star to the right, straighPosts: 28MI6 Agent
Well, what can I say what hasn't been said already?
Personally, I think it's good and sad news. Just remember, these will be my thoughts and opinions from reading this thread and hearing about Daniel Craig's succession.
Firstly, it's good news... Because Eon has finally found another James Bond, whether or not he was the fanbase's first choice.
Daniel Craig is a good actor, I first saw him in Tomb Raider and then again in Layer Cake. He is under the radar here in North America, Layer Cake came out on DVD only a short while ago. Like many people, I never really believed the DC rumors and dismissed them in hopes of seeing Hugh Jackman or Gerard Butler get the coveted role if Pierce didn't get a go at it again.
To me, this means the movie's development hell will be starting to go into overdrive. I wouldn't be suprised if Paul Haggis and Purvis and Wade go through another draft of the script to write for DC's strengths as an actor.
For Daniel, when I first heard the news, I thought.... OMG! No WAY!!!!! He's got no sex appeal. He looks older than Pierce. He's not charismatic enough. He's not debonaire or suave. He's friggin BLONDE!
Now that the shock is kinda over... I'll hold my judgment in reserve as to how well he'll be as Bond. He's got a few months to brush up for the role, talk with people who'll help him and don't forget he is a professional actor... That means, he has the ability to get the job done.
Right now, I think it's good to see all the moaning and groaning that was happening in this thread over the last few days. It means, that us, as hard core JB fans still care for what the direction the franchise is taking. I care, I'll lament Pierce's going as I do believe he was the best Bond. (Only cause he protrayed a more charactarized Bond and he had such great sex appeal, remember I'm a lady and I do like hot men.)
I do know that many of us who now post here haven't had to go through a Bond change, that hasn't happened since Pierce first arrived. I'm sure some of the old fella's ;-) can share stories from each new Bond actor.
Soooo... I suggest, we take everything in stride. I wasn't a DC supporter, though now right, I'll give him the benefit of doubt. He may suprise us. :-)
To me, this means the movie's development hell will be starting to go into overdrive. I wouldn't be suprised if Paul Haggis and Purvis and Wade go through another draft of the script to write for DC's strengths as an actor.
I think that's a given. I truly believe that Craig was the only candidate that Sony would back, and that was because they now know more about him, and have reports from Spielberg's new film 'Munich' and the 'Invasion' with Nicole Kidman.
There is no way in the world that Craig was always their first choice. If you have the director and writer only last week insisting the script called for a 28-32 year old, then it's clear that when Sony called the summit last week it was make or break. I believe that Sony's take was that they wanted Brosnan back, and the only compromise Eon had was Craig, which was a compromise on their vision for the film, and a compromise for Sony, but some level of reassurance re. box office draw and acting chops.
So having hired Haggis for a much-publicised 3-week rewrite on the script, they now need to do the job again to cater it for Craig.
I totally agree with you about TWINE. IMO it was the best Bond film since TSWLM, although GE was very close to being as good.
Thank you, Eye! It's good to know that there are more TWINE fans out there.
Anyway, I looked up the press conference video, and I have to say that this doesn't look good to me at all. The Daily Mirror was perhaps a bit harsh, but it does have some interesting points. I could go into detail about every little thing, but what really got me most was when someone asked him this:
Quote (not verbatim):
- "Have you ever practiced any of Bond's lines in the mirror?"
- "No."
- "Not even 'Bond, James Bond'?"
- "Maybe once or twice... I was very drunk, if I did."
All of a sudden, everyone in the room is getting the biggest laugh out of this... I see nothing funny about it. I don't know why any man who is a Bond fan would not have said "Bond, James Bond" to themselves in the mirror at least once in their lifetime, and not only when they're drunk. The man sounds about as excited as a potato...
As much as I loath it, I do agree with Predator in that perhaps getting a new actor now would be least damaging to them in the future. However, I still say they could have gotten someone who is at least proud to say to the world "I'm a Bond fan!" Not somebody who may as well have said "Oh, I'm Bond. Cool. Now can I go home? I'm missing Cooking with Beans..."
With those two upcoming films, sony will be counting on his marketability increasing for sure.
Im goin back and forth with him in the lead but, hey its bond. Soon as that famous tune kicks in and a great chase sequence crashes through the screen, i may be happyish lol who knows only 12 months to wait.
thank you, Daniel Craif is completly unlike to be Bond
It probably won't do any good; as if Eon with their enormous ego would be willing to admit that they had actually made a mistake... But hey, I'll sign it!
More indifference, with a focus on past shenanigans and private indiscretions in The Sunday Times Comment today. Full article is in the link below, but some choice paragraphs I've posted below. To someone who asked if the press in the UK reacted like this to Brosnan...er, "No", quite simply.
Worthy note is this "leaked EON memo". Who leaked it and why? I'd say, in my humble opinion, it hints at discord in the team surrounding the new Bond. After all, leaks are only committed by those who want to harm, when it is regarding something controversial.
(Oh, and FROSTY, I'll see your fiver and raise you fifty)
He likes his beer – not shaken, not stirred
Profile: Daniel Craig
...Craig is not an obvious choice. Although possessed of a smouldering screen presence and piercing blue eyes, his nickname “Mr Potato Head” suggests that he lacks the clean good looks of his five predecessors as James Bond — Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Brosnan.
Indeed, some think he is not the real goods. Bookmakers are already taking bets that, like Lazenby, he will not survive the first movie. His comprehensive school background and Liverpool roots highlighted by the tabloids are irrelevant: few of the 007 acting dynasty shared the privileged upbringing sketched by Fleming for his hero. Similarly a well-chronicled fondness for beer and four-letter words do not count against him. But his self-confessed “craggy” face and scrubby complexion might have been a worry for the Bond producers before they awarded him a £15m three-film contract. ...
...Given such artifice, it is perhaps odd that Craig, at 6ft the shortest Bond, won the role over the 5ft 10in Ewan McGregor on the basis of his height. According to a leaked memo from Eon Productions, owner of the Bond franchise and inherited by Broccoli's daughter Barbara: "Eric Bana was deemed not handsome enough. Hugh Jackman was too fey, Colin Farrell too sleazy and Ewan McGregor too short. (Barbara) Broccoli championed oft- reported contender Daniel Craig." ...
...Craig has other assets that fascinate the gossip writers: a complicated love life and a hint of caddishness to match Bond’s. His long-time friendship with Jude Law is apparently in ruins after his reported fling with Law’s girlfriend Sienna Miller.
The affair is said to have begun two years ago when Craig and Miller worked together on the British gangster film Layer Cake, then was rekindled recently while Law and Miller were patching up a relationship that had been scarred by Law’s infidelity with his children’s nanny.
Craig has a 13-year-old daughter from his marriage to the actress Fiona Loudon in 1992 when they were both 24. It lasted nearly four years.
He had a seven-year relationship with the German-born Heike Makatsch, who played Alan Rickman’s secretary in the film Love Actually. She was said to be “devastated” to discover last year that he was seeing the model Kate Moss, now in rehab for cocaine addiction. Craig’s current belle is said to be Satsuki Mitchell, a 29-year-old Los Angeles film producer. ...
...Paul Haggis, the screenwriter, has promised us a grittier plot than usual, but this scenario is surely too much to hope for.
(Oh, and FROSTY, I'll see your fiver and raise you fifty)
Well even I would take that bet, because there is no way on this planet he will equal Brosnan and DAD.
As for the article, this is just the beginning.There is a lot of negativity about him and aprt from blueman, I dont know of anyone who has been definate about his appointment.Most of us in the 'Craig will be great' thread are just there cos we have come round to the idea, rather than thinking he was ideal man for the job.
Never mind, it seems the way of the world so, we will just have to look at it as an interesting part of Bonds history.I'm staying optimistic and I will support Craig now he is here, but Eon are going to have to work very hard and get every aspect of the movie right to convince me.
Although possessed of a smouldering screen presence and piercing blue eyes, his nickname “Mr Potato Head” suggests that he lacks the clean good looks of his five predecessors as James Bond...
You see? I'm not the only one who thinks he's as excited as a potato!
I read an article that said Babs was using the Bourne movies as the model for the new Bond movie. Which might explain why they went with a short blond actor. Not to mention Craig is long time buddy to the Broccoli's. I repeat what I have said before, Bond is not and should not be like Bourne. Bond is bigger, sexier, and more fun than the Bourne movies. If you look at the classic Bond movies they all had an element of fun to them, the Bourne movies do not. I really think we are heading down the wrong road with this new movie. Why do the Bond movie do well at the box office, video sales and on television even when they have been on numerous times. Because they are fun and enjoyable. I agree the danger element can be ratched up and the cartoon stuff ratched down, but if they make a dark, violent, brooding tale with a bland actor, only the hardcore Bond fans will be happy.
Maybe Eon should have phoned up Angelina Jolie and asked her if she would have picked Craig over Gerard Butler, based on her roles with both in Tomb Raider.
I have a sneaking suspicion she'd have gone with Butler.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
Maybe Eon should have phoned up Angelina Jolie and asked her if she would have picked Craig over Gerard Butler, based on her roles with both in Tomb Raider.
I have a sneaking suspicion she'd have gone with Butler.
At least for her that's a no-brainer...
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
So much of our discussion over the past couple of days has been whether or not fans will accept Craig as the new James Bond. There seems to be a large following of Craig-bashers, saying that he'll never succeed at the Box Office level. That may be true, but I'm beginning to sense there's another problem: Craig's own resolve to be Bond. At the press intro, he gave the impression that Bond didn't mean a whole lot to him, and I think he might tire of the role very quickly. Couple that with his apparant media shy-ness and the whole situation may become unpalatable even faster. He made a statement before about not liking scripts that don't make sense, and he's putting himself in position of having little creative input into his career. As much as I accept the idea of Craig being Bond, I think that diminished Box Office and Craig's established attitudes, that EON may release him from his 3-picture deal early if a more suitable actor arrives on the scene.
Personally, I think it's good and sad news. Just remember, these will be my thoughts and opinions from reading this thread and hearing about Daniel Craig's succession.
Soooo... I suggest, we take everything in stride. I wasn't a DC supporter, though now right, I'll give him the benefit of doubt. He may suprise us. :-)
Great post Xenia ... agree completely.
I have only been a Bond fan for 3 changes of actors (Moore to Dalton, Dalton to Brosnan and the current change).
Each of the three has resulted in questions in my mind to the suitability of the new actor (yes, even Brosnan, who I thought to be too transatlantic and smarmy). That's only natural when there is such a change to the franchise.
I want to comment specifically about Dalton's and Craig's taking of the role. Neither (to me) was an obvious first choice. Both had/have excellent acting pedigrees, both seem(ed) shy of the media, neither seem(ed) particularly keen on Bond (at least not in the same way that Brosnan) but both were/are likely to create a really interesting and different portrayal of 007.
That Dalton was only given 2 films is irrelevant as without the post LTK hiatus, he would surely have had at least one and maybe two more Bonds to his name. I believe that with Craig we can expect a similar realignment of the franchise. And before any Brosnan fans faint, don't forget that without Dalton doing a similar job to the series, Brosnan's tenure would have been a great deal harder.
DAD was a very expensive and yet very lucrative Hollywood action film. If I want a Hollywood action film, I do not watch a Bond film.
scaramanga1The English RivieraPosts: 845Chief of Staff
Personally, I think it's good and sad news. Just remember, these will be my thoughts and opinions from reading this thread and hearing about Daniel Craig's succession.
Soooo... I suggest, we take everything in stride. I wasn't a DC supporter, though now right, I'll give him the benefit of doubt. He may suprise us. :-)
Great post Xenia ... agree completely.
I have only been a Bond fan for 3 changes of actors (Moore to Dalton, Dalton to Brosnan and the current change).
Each of the three has resulted in questions in my mind to the suitability of the new actor (yes, even Brosnan, who I thought to be too transatlantic and smarmy). That's only natural when there is such a change to the franchise.
I want to comment specifically about Dalton's and Craig's taking of the role. Neither (to me) was an obvious first choice. Both had/have excellent acting pedigrees, both seem(ed) shy of the media, neither seem(ed) particularly keen on Bond (at least not in the same way that Brosnan) but both were/are likely to create a really interesting and different portrayal of 007.
That Dalton was only given 2 films is irrelevant as without the post LTK hiatus, he would surely have had at least one and maybe two more Bonds to his name. I believe that with Craig we can expect a similar realignment of the franchise. And before any Brosnan fans faint, don't forget that without Dalton doing a similar job to the series, Brosnan's tenure would have been a great deal harder.
DAD was a very expensive and yet very lucrative Hollywood action film. If I want a Hollywood action film, I do not watch a Bond film.
Well said Pred -I too have followed the same transitions as you and feel quite the same about the matter. I have already stated I think DC will be able to bring a more Flemingesque Bond to the screen - if only because he does the mystique and edgy thing really well.
Quoting Predator
DAD was a very expensive and yet very lucrative Hollywood action film. If I want a Hollywood action film, I do not watch a Bond film.
______________________________________________
I find that strange since IMO every Bond picture since GF has been a Hollywood action movie. Stunts, car chases, fights, gun battles to me is action. How do you classify Bond pictures?
Comments
Although, it goes without saying that such thoughts are not those of AJB007.co.uk in any way. They are the thoughts of one member who has voiced them in a parodical way.
a) No, poor press conference doesn't equal bad Bond, wasn't the point I was making. Just responding to those saying, gee, can't blame him for being overwhelmed etc etc
b) Blond hair? Not saying he should have got it cut or dyed etc. More that they hadn't established whether he would dye it or not in their many discussions, apparently. But maybe I'm wrong on that.
c) Re Babs, no I'm not suggesting an actual ding dong, just that, well, it's a bit partial on her part...
that is all...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Well, stupid old me. I guess passions are running high even with the moderators.
Let me clarify :-
Sony want the Bond franchise, and always have. What happens when somebody wants something is that they pretend to be friends intitially, cosy up, learn strengths and weaknesses, and just prod away. They then wait until someone is vulnerable and strike. So what if they don't hold controlling interest, they buy it from or exert influence on those that do, they apply pressure via external forces, wear down their prey. If Eon are so powerful, why did they need Sony's approval on who to cast? Why did Eon let Sony\MGM kill the Jinx movie that they worked so hard on? The reason is that Eon are extremely reliant on studio backing, and their current backer is in a win win situation. If Eon do well, Sony get their payday and half the credit, if they don't they blame Eon and use it as a large stick to begin the beatings and dismantlings with, because Eon would be financially stretched by a Bond flop and without total support from their biggest assets, their Bond fans, who would be calling for change at the top.
This is what happens in big business, and film-making is the biggest, nastiest, dirtiest, cut-throat business of all.
That's the thing that amazes me about Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli: every 10-12 years they get this idea in their heads that the series is in trouble, that it needs to be revitalized and that they have to go "darker and grittier"; but there is no hard data to back this up at all. I don't know if its ego or a misguided belief that Bond should be some serious cinematic character but this line of thinking is just plain wrong.
Yes, a small and sometimes vocal percentage (the hardcore Bond fans) complain about the far out plots and childish quips. But they are the minority; the general public eats that kind of Bond movie up. And when the producers go "back to basics" Bond always suffers at the box office.
I hope I'm wrong, but I think Casino Royale will fail for two reasons:
While I have nothing against Daniel Craig, he reminds me a lot of Timothy Dalton in terms of his comfort level with the press (or lack thereof) and based on his previous roles, I just don't think he can pull off the witty side of Bond that the average fan seems to enjoy. Dalton had the same problem and that was one of the reasons the casual fan rejected him. Also, the way in which Brosnan was passed aside has created a lot of bad blood with a lot of fans and since Craig is his successor, I think he will bear the brunt of that (I know it isn't fair, but that's life). In short, it's Lazenby coming on after Connery all over again. Lazenby never really got a fair shake and I can see the same thing happening to Craig. I think a lot of the negativity we've seen so far can be traced to this.
From what I've heard so far, the plot really doesn't sound all that much "fun" to me. In other words, the movie sounds very different from the typical Bond formula that the average fan is familiar and comfortable with. The last movie to really deviate from the formula was License to Kill and we know how that ended up.
Giving the average fan such a radically different Bond in such an (apparently) different kind of Bond movie is a very big risk. In the end, I don't think it will pay off, especially here in America.
TonyDP
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Optimism!
Yeah, I think that's apparent.
Try it from where I'm sitting.
You'll be happy to hear I've purchased your book on AJB etiquette on E-Bay (it's selling like hotcakes!), and I will use it to guide me in future exchanges. I'm convinced I've offended my last member, and I thank you for your guidance in this matter.
Back to topic: I downloaded the 9+ MB video hi-light file from MI6 of Craig's press conference, which was actually pretty cool, and (although brief) more than ten times what I saw on Headline News on Friday morning.
Craig's voice is very good; that's a plus IMO. Panache is a must, and I got the impression he can muster that. I'm interested to see what they do to manage his on-screen image---not just hair color, but cut as well. I'm also encouraged that we will actually learn the ingredients of the martini. Perhaps Craig will make his mark as the Fleming-written fastidious Bond. That could be interesting.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
You truly are ambiguous.
It's an invaluable trait in the field. :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Which field? That's what I meant.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Do you know, I think I am a DC defender ... but you are not
As for the press conference, I think he was pretty charming, down to earth and there were no 'prepared' answers. I have attended a great many press conferences in my time and considering the stakes, I think you saw a very natural performer. Too often a press conference becomes an opportunity to trot out all the carefully constructed answers - answers not by the actor but written by some PR executive with all the right words to illicit a controlled response from the audience (spin IOW)
Upon repeat viewing (thanks to MI6) it has reinforced my thought that DC was actually pretty good. He has my backing.
Regarding (c), that is neither of our businesses ...
Personally, I think it's good and sad news. Just remember, these will be my thoughts and opinions from reading this thread and hearing about Daniel Craig's succession.
Firstly, it's good news... Because Eon has finally found another James Bond, whether or not he was the fanbase's first choice.
Daniel Craig is a good actor, I first saw him in Tomb Raider and then again in Layer Cake. He is under the radar here in North America, Layer Cake came out on DVD only a short while ago. Like many people, I never really believed the DC rumors and dismissed them in hopes of seeing Hugh Jackman or Gerard Butler get the coveted role if Pierce didn't get a go at it again.
To me, this means the movie's development hell will be starting to go into overdrive. I wouldn't be suprised if Paul Haggis and Purvis and Wade go through another draft of the script to write for DC's strengths as an actor.
For Daniel, when I first heard the news, I thought.... OMG! No WAY!!!!! He's got no sex appeal. He looks older than Pierce. He's not charismatic enough. He's not debonaire or suave. He's friggin BLONDE!
Now that the shock is kinda over... I'll hold my judgment in reserve as to how well he'll be as Bond. He's got a few months to brush up for the role, talk with people who'll help him and don't forget he is a professional actor... That means, he has the ability to get the job done.
Right now, I think it's good to see all the moaning and groaning that was happening in this thread over the last few days. It means, that us, as hard core JB fans still care for what the direction the franchise is taking. I care, I'll lament Pierce's going as I do believe he was the best Bond. (Only cause he protrayed a more charactarized Bond and he had such great sex appeal, remember I'm a lady and I do like hot men.)
I do know that many of us who now post here haven't had to go through a Bond change, that hasn't happened since Pierce first arrived. I'm sure some of the old fella's ;-) can share stories from each new Bond actor.
Soooo... I suggest, we take everything in stride. I wasn't a DC supporter, though now right, I'll give him the benefit of doubt. He may suprise us. :-)
I think that's a given. I truly believe that Craig was the only candidate that Sony would back, and that was because they now know more about him, and have reports from Spielberg's new film 'Munich' and the 'Invasion' with Nicole Kidman.
There is no way in the world that Craig was always their first choice. If you have the director and writer only last week insisting the script called for a 28-32 year old, then it's clear that when Sony called the summit last week it was make or break. I believe that Sony's take was that they wanted Brosnan back, and the only compromise Eon had was Craig, which was a compromise on their vision for the film, and a compromise for Sony, but some level of reassurance re. box office draw and acting chops.
So having hired Haggis for a much-publicised 3-week rewrite on the script, they now need to do the job again to cater it for Craig.
Thank you, Eye! It's good to know that there are more TWINE fans out there.
Anyway, I looked up the press conference video, and I have to say that this doesn't look good to me at all. The Daily Mirror was perhaps a bit harsh, but it does have some interesting points. I could go into detail about every little thing, but what really got me most was when someone asked him this:
Quote (not verbatim):
- "Have you ever practiced any of Bond's lines in the mirror?"
- "No."
- "Not even 'Bond, James Bond'?"
- "Maybe once or twice... I was very drunk, if I did."
All of a sudden, everyone in the room is getting the biggest laugh out of this... I see nothing funny about it. I don't know why any man who is a Bond fan would not have said "Bond, James Bond" to themselves in the mirror at least once in their lifetime, and not only when they're drunk. The man sounds about as excited as a potato...
As much as I loath it, I do agree with Predator in that perhaps getting a new actor now would be least damaging to them in the future. However, I still say they could have gotten someone who is at least proud to say to the world "I'm a Bond fan!" Not somebody who may as well have said "Oh, I'm Bond. Cool. Now can I go home? I'm missing Cooking with Beans..."
Im goin back and forth with him in the lead but, hey its bond. Soon as that famous tune kicks in and a great chase sequence crashes through the screen, i may be happyish lol who knows only 12 months to wait.
http://www.petitiononline.com/007bond/petition.html
thank you, Daniel Craif is completly unlike to be Bond
It probably won't do any good; as if Eon with their enormous ego would be willing to admit that they had actually made a mistake... But hey, I'll sign it!
Worthy note is this "leaked EON memo". Who leaked it and why? I'd say, in my humble opinion, it hints at discord in the team surrounding the new Bond. After all, leaks are only committed by those who want to harm, when it is regarding something controversial.
(Oh, and FROSTY, I'll see your fiver and raise you fifty)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1827543,00.html
He likes his beer – not shaken, not stirred
Profile: Daniel Craig
...Craig is not an obvious choice. Although possessed of a smouldering screen presence and piercing blue eyes, his nickname “Mr Potato Head” suggests that he lacks the clean good looks of his five predecessors as James Bond — Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Brosnan.
Indeed, some think he is not the real goods. Bookmakers are already taking bets that, like Lazenby, he will not survive the first movie. His comprehensive school background and Liverpool roots highlighted by the tabloids are irrelevant: few of the 007 acting dynasty shared the privileged upbringing sketched by Fleming for his hero. Similarly a well-chronicled fondness for beer and four-letter words do not count against him. But his self-confessed “craggy” face and scrubby complexion might have been a worry for the Bond producers before they awarded him a £15m three-film contract. ...
...Given such artifice, it is perhaps odd that Craig, at 6ft the shortest Bond, won the role over the 5ft 10in Ewan McGregor on the basis of his height. According to a leaked memo from Eon Productions, owner of the Bond franchise and inherited by Broccoli's daughter Barbara: "Eric Bana was deemed not handsome enough. Hugh Jackman was too fey, Colin Farrell too sleazy and Ewan McGregor too short. (Barbara) Broccoli championed oft- reported contender Daniel Craig." ...
...Craig has other assets that fascinate the gossip writers: a complicated love life and a hint of caddishness to match Bond’s. His long-time friendship with Jude Law is apparently in ruins after his reported fling with Law’s girlfriend Sienna Miller.
The affair is said to have begun two years ago when Craig and Miller worked together on the British gangster film Layer Cake, then was rekindled recently while Law and Miller were patching up a relationship that had been scarred by Law’s infidelity with his children’s nanny.
Craig has a 13-year-old daughter from his marriage to the actress Fiona Loudon in 1992 when they were both 24. It lasted nearly four years.
He had a seven-year relationship with the German-born Heike Makatsch, who played Alan Rickman’s secretary in the film Love Actually. She was said to be “devastated” to discover last year that he was seeing the model Kate Moss, now in rehab for cocaine addiction. Craig’s current belle is said to be Satsuki Mitchell, a 29-year-old Los Angeles film producer. ...
...Paul Haggis, the screenwriter, has promised us a grittier plot than usual, but this scenario is surely too much to hope for.
Well even I would take that bet, because there is no way on this planet he will equal Brosnan and DAD.
As for the article, this is just the beginning.There is a lot of negativity about him and aprt from blueman, I dont know of anyone who has been definate about his appointment.Most of us in the 'Craig will be great' thread are just there cos we have come round to the idea, rather than thinking he was ideal man for the job.
Never mind, it seems the way of the world so, we will just have to look at it as an interesting part of Bonds history.I'm staying optimistic and I will support Craig now he is here, but Eon are going to have to work very hard and get every aspect of the movie right to convince me.
You see? I'm not the only one who thinks he's as excited as a potato!
I have a sneaking suspicion she'd have gone with Butler.
At least for her that's a no-brainer...
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Absolutely.
Bond shouldn't need to use anything else as a model.
It should always be the other way around.
Great post Xenia ... agree completely.
I have only been a Bond fan for 3 changes of actors (Moore to Dalton, Dalton to Brosnan and the current change).
Each of the three has resulted in questions in my mind to the suitability of the new actor (yes, even Brosnan, who I thought to be too transatlantic and smarmy). That's only natural when there is such a change to the franchise.
I want to comment specifically about Dalton's and Craig's taking of the role. Neither (to me) was an obvious first choice. Both had/have excellent acting pedigrees, both seem(ed) shy of the media, neither seem(ed) particularly keen on Bond (at least not in the same way that Brosnan) but both were/are likely to create a really interesting and different portrayal of 007.
That Dalton was only given 2 films is irrelevant as without the post LTK hiatus, he would surely have had at least one and maybe two more Bonds to his name. I believe that with Craig we can expect a similar realignment of the franchise. And before any Brosnan fans faint, don't forget that without Dalton doing a similar job to the series, Brosnan's tenure would have been a great deal harder.
DAD was a very expensive and yet very lucrative Hollywood action film. If I want a Hollywood action film, I do not watch a Bond film.
Well said Pred -I too have followed the same transitions as you and feel quite the same about the matter. I have already stated I think DC will be able to bring a more Flemingesque Bond to the screen - if only because he does the mystique and edgy thing really well.
DAD was a very expensive and yet very lucrative Hollywood action film. If I want a Hollywood action film, I do not watch a Bond film.
______________________________________________
I find that strange since IMO every Bond picture since GF has been a Hollywood action movie. Stunts, car chases, fights, gun battles to me is action. How do you classify Bond pictures?