As for Craig, I honestly think we must give him a chance. Not one of us have seen his screen test. None of us have read the screenplay.
Casting Craig does confirm certain things which I think are very good signs indeed:
CR will be darker, have a gritty edge.
It will explore Bond's character. It will be more adult. It appears as if they really are trying to explore elements of Fleming's Bond which the films (apart from the first 3 and OHMSS, maybe LTK) have never had much room for before.
Craig looks like a man who means business. He's steely. He's tough. He looks like he can handle himself. Connery was rough as hell before Young fashioned him into Bond; indeed Fleming was against Connery but won over once he saw him as Bond.
Craig is 37 -- he's not a "young" Bond which was being considered. Casting him means this "re-boot" won't feel so outside the Bond universe as it would if we suddenly had a 20-something youngster in the role.
Craig is a very fine actor and very charismatic on screen; which is the quality I think (IMO) Dalton lacked. So we are going to get a tougher Bond, but played by an actor with more range and screen charisma than Dalton had. (And many of us here liked Dalton because he pushed to be a Fleming Bond, but the material and the times worked a bit against him, and as I say, he just didn't have that star quality for the wider audience.) I think Craig has that star quality. He certainly has it in Layer Cake and from all accounts he burns up the screen in Spielberg's Munich.
Craig has a very strong and commanding voice.
Craig is British.
That picture of Craig as Bond looks cool. He looks deadly.
Craig is not a Brosnan clone; which is a good call on EON'S part.
Craig has a strong look -- not the traditional, handsome Bond look which we have been used to, but never the less, he has a powerful look.
I find all this weeping and wailing over Craigs appointment a little odd and extremely premature.
I said earlier Craig was not my choice, but for all the reasons M Hazard points out, it might just work out very well.
People were very quick to dismiss Lazenby and Dalton and in my opion, missed out on three very good films.I wouldn't like to see that happen to Craig.It's because there have been changes made over the years that has enabled the series to continue.
There is no doubt as Bond fans that there are some interesting times ahead for us.
Whats the worst that could happen here?? Its not going to finish the series and if it doesn't work, the producers will change it.For those of you that insist if Cubby were here,it wouldn't be happening I beg to differ.Cubby wanted Lazenby to continue in the role and he was also set to have Dalton return in a third.Both of which were unpopular decisions.
Everyone was moaning about change ...Well, you got it folks!! Get with the programme....
As a side note ... I wasn't impressed with his litle slip at the press conference.Maybe it was nerves, afterall he is an extremely private individual.From that point he reminds me of Tim Dalton who also refused to answere personal questions at his press conference.I hope he doesn't have the same issues with all the publicity and intrusion which seemed to cause TD more problems than anything else.
Many months ago, I posted several things on this site, but have been too busy to do so since then. When the news was announced today that Daniel Craig was to be the new 007, I thought of this website straight away "I wonder what the people of Absolutely James Bond will think" I am very dissapointed by many people's reaction.
Is there any chance people here can give this new guy a break? He's been 5 minutes in his tuxedo and people are judging him already. Ok so my best choice would have been Pierce to continue but come on everyone give Craig Daniel a chance! One comment that has surfaced many times is "He doesn't even look like Bond" Well I'd like to remind everyone that James Bond started off on the page and therefore he had no look. He was what you wanted him to look like in your mind's eye. It's amazing how narrow minded many people can be, so he does'nt have dark hair and a chisled look. Can we open our mind to the fact that he might be any good? No apparently not, looks come first. And the person who said James Bond died today - grow up!
Exactly.
Everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt, though i just think it shows how so many people have different expectations of what Bond should be. I think 20 years ago many people would not argue so much against the decision, i think people have just lost faith in Eon's (namely wilson,s) decision making. But everyone deserves a crack of the whip for sure, i love Bond and thats enough of a reason for me to go see the film and give it a chnace.
'...exceptionally fine shot...'
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
...And the person who said James Bond died today - grow up!
Dude---you're out of line.
If you read my quote, what I said was: "JAMES BOND IS DEAD. LONG LIVE JAMES BOND." What this indicates is a changing of the guard; I suppose the Brits will get this more than the Yanks. In the old days, when a king died and was succeeded, the announcement was, "The King is dead. Long live the King."
The rest of my post (if you actually read it) takes pains to give Daniel Craig the benefit of the doubt.
It's one thing to be ignorant, sir; but it's quite another to flaunt that ignorance on the world wide web. 8-)
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
This brings up another source of confusion for me. Remember how DAD was supposed to be the film that brings Bond into the 21st century? CGI effects, trendy "speed ramp" edits, a plot involving genetic manipulation and virtual reality, etc.? Yet now the idea is to high-tail back to the mid-20th century? Further evidence, perhaps, that EON has no idea where they're going.
I agree that everyone is being far too harsh. Daniel Craig has long been my top choice to take over as Bond. When I heard Brosnan wasn't coming back, I thought that Daniel Craig would be the only replacement that wasn't a disappointment.
As an actor, he runs circles around Clive Owen and the other names being brought up. He has charisma, but with a darker edge. No, he isn't the best looking candidate. But personally, I think casting an ACTOR for Bond rather than just some generic pretty face suggests that Bond will be a 3-Dimensional character in the new film.
And some of you are being very immature. "He's ugly!" "This is the death of the franchise!" Boo-hoo. Daniel Craig has been cast - and in my opinion its a great choice - and no amount of whining and moaning is going to change that.
So try and be optimistic. You call yourslef fans - so act like fans. We have a new Bond! It's time to get excited about November 2006...
f you read my quote, what I said was: "JAMES BOND IS DEAD. LONG LIVE JAMES BOND." What this indicates is a changing of the guard; I suppose the Brits will get this more than the Yanks. In the old days, when a king died and was succeeded, the announcement was, "The King is dead. Long live the King."
...And the person who said James Bond died today - grow up!
Dude---you're out of line.
If you read my quote, what I said was: "JAMES BOND IS DEAD. LONG LIVE JAMES BOND." What this indicates is a changing of the guard; I suppose the Brits will get this more than the Yanks. In the old days, when a king died and was succeeded, the announcement was, "The King is dead. Long live the King."
The rest of my post (if you actually read it) takes pains to give Daniel Craig the benefit of the doubt.
It's one thing to be ignorant, sir; but it's quite another to flaunt that ignorance on the world wide web. 8-)
"The King is Dead, Long live the King." was it Richard the III?
Am I the only one who thinks Criag looks like a rougher Sean Connery. And the blond hair isn't that big a deal because I don't care what people say, but Roger Moore's hair is blond and I thought Moore was an exceptional Bond. And at least Craig's casting isn't as bad as say having Meatloaf playing Renard. "Aren't you all glad we didn't end up with Meatloaf playing Renard."
In my opinion, we ARE acting like fans. How often have fans of a particular sports team complained when the team owner dismisses a star player or great coach and then brings in someone who strikes them as unlikely? Does this mean they've stopped being fans of the team and are now going to cheer for another one? It is because those fans love and care about their team that they want their displeasure to be heard. I think we as Bond fans have a right and--dare I say it?--a duty to demand that EON really deliver this time out. The last thing we should do is roll over and say, "Whatever is fine with you, Mickey and Babs, is fine with us!"
Interesting that Craig's mother leaked the news. That has to be a first in movie history. It's also the first time I've heard of a Bond actor having a mother! I mean, I've never a damn thing about Roger Moore's mom, or any of the others for that matter, in the whole history of this franchise.
I am very disappointed in the choice of Craig as 007, but I like to believe that I am an open minded person, so I am going to go rent Layer Cake and await the release of Casino Royale before passing harsh judgement. I saw Road to Perdition a couple of years ago, and it never would have occured to me that this man would be a good 007 in a million years. Maybe they saw something I didn't.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
In my opinion, we ARE acting like fans. How often have fans of a particular sports team complained when the team owner dismisses a star player or great coach and then brings in someone who strikes them as unlikely? Does this mean they've stopped being fans of the team and are now going to cheer for another one? It is because those fans love and care about their team that they want their displeasure to be heard. I think we as Bond fans have a right and--dare I say it?--a duty to demand that EON really deliver this time out. The last thing we should do is roll over and say, "Whatever is fine with you, Mickey and Babs, is fine with us!"
I strongly believe that there is a certain duty to hold "the powers that be's" feet to the fire. If we didn't voice our passions then they might feel they could cast whomever grossly not qualified and we'd just accept it.
Although we are but a fraction(this board) of an enormous franchise that we are feeding into, they should take heed and not try and force feed us when the mood strikes them.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Did not realsie he was in road to Perdition, excellent film will give it another look. Did he play a hitman?
Craig played Paul Newman's idiot son. It was a very effective performance, but not one which would lead one to think, "Wow! This guy could be Bond!"
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
I think we as Bond fans have a right and--dare I say it?--a duty to demand that EON really deliver this time out. The last thing we should do is roll over and say, "Whatever is fine with you, Mickey and Babs, is fine with us!"
Makes me proud to be an American to hear someone with ideals that reflect pure democracy.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
Did not realsie he was in road to Perdition, excellent film will give it another look. Did he play a hitman?
Craig played Paul Newman's idiot son. It was a very effective performance, but not one which would lead one to think, "Wow! This guy could be Bond!"
Ah yeah i remember, agreed not something that would lead you to Bond. I am no doubt gonna look at all his previous films so ill give it a look. Can only remember him realy in Tomb Raider: blah blah blah (it was a long title), was not what you call great but was not bad... the script for that film was none existant to be fair to all involved.
'...exceptionally fine shot...'
FelixLeiter ♀Staffordshire or a pubPosts: 1,286MI6 Agent
I read this in the Express and Star Tuesday night, they were making it sound official, but to be honest I just accepted it as a load of trash. )
I did believe it could be possible though. The Express and Star isn't like the Sun who report fake stuff like this all the time.
I honestly think he'll make an awful Bond and I'm just pretty much praying he'll only do one film.
But I'll still be sitting there with my best mate at the first showing. Even if it is a Friday! X-( They did that with Die Another Day and man did it p*ss me off! X-( I'm gonna be at the first showing and be the first one back here to complain about it all I like!
I'll probably still go see it 5 times though. Loads of my mates want to go with me and 20+ of us can't just all walk in there! )
This is a dark day indeed. I feel that the claims that Craig's introduction can somehow herald a return to the Connery mold of 007 are not justified. Connery was handsome, oozing with rakish charm when around the ladies. Craig is ugly, and doesn't seem capable to generate one-tenth the charm that Connery could turn on at will. Connery had a great physique, and looked like he could be a physical threat to anybody (even Lazenby had this). Craig, with his small stature, doesn't look nearly as threatening. He may act tough with his eyes and face, but place him near some decent-sized villains and he won't be convincingly imposing any more. The scene that I remember the most from Layer Cake is the one where Craig was being man-handled by Colm Meaney (I hope I remember his name correctly). This guy just grabbed Craig by the neck and slammed his face into a block of frozen fish.
A script is perhaps the most important thing in a movie. Given a bad, underwritten script, even a dashing actor who looks every bit the way James Bond should look won't be able to turn the film into a classic. However, at least the audience watching him won't have to spend too much energy suspending their disbelief to accept him as 007. Imagine having to do that for 2 hours, on top of having to watch a film with a weak script. That would be 2 hours in purgatory! A good script by Haggis may be able to save Craig's behind in CR, but if the scriptwriters falter for the next one, watch out...
A lack of physical attractiveness doesn't guarantee grittiness or edginess. A good script would take care of those things. Now, a good script coupled with a believable 007 would be a brilliant movie. Alas, we won't see that kind of movie with Craig.
A script is perhaps the most important thing in a movie. Given a bad, underwritten script, even a dashing actor who looks every bit the way James Bond should look won't be able to turn the film into a classic. However, at least the audience watching him won't have to spend too much energy suspending their disbelief to accept him as 007. Imagine having to do that for 2 hours, on top of having to watch a film with a weak script. That would be 2 hours in purgatory! A good script by Haggis may be able to save Craig's behind in CR, but if the scriptwriters falter for the next one, watch out...
Thank yoooooooooouuu!!!! Though I'd add the little bit about retrograde...
Today is good day: Julian Mac Mahon will not be james bond.
Today is a bad day: Pierce will never be bond again
Today is still a good day: Daniel Craig was the best choice but Brosnan.
I'm a longtime James Bond fan (going on 30 years) but new to this board. While I'm particularly disappointed with how the producers have handled Pierce Brosnan's departure from the role, the signing of Daniel Craig as Bond and the general direction for Casino Royale have me concerned for several reasons:
1) A poll on CNN.com about audience perceptions about Craig as Bond shows that 50% of the respondents don't care at all; less than 10% approve of Craig. Over the past 15 years, Bond's fortunes at the box office (at least here in America) have been inextricably linked to the actor playing him. Timothy Dalton (who was a very good Bond and right out of Fleming's books) was greeted with indifference; just as Craig appears to be engendering now. Conversely, when Pierce Brosnan assumed the mantle the general public welcomed him with open arms and all of his films were commercial successes. Even if you didn't like them, you can't argue with the success he brought back to the series.
2) The producers are using predictable buzzwords to describe Casino Royale: darker, grittier, back to basics, edgier, etc. The last time I heard this was during License to Kill. Again, that movie was received with indifference in America and sent the franchise into dormancy for 7 long years.
While hardcore Bond fans would welcome a Bond true to his literary roots; the average moviegoer could care less. When it comes to a Bond movie, the average moviegoer expects a spectacle with over the top stunts, beautiful women, cool gadgets, and a suave handsome Bond. I know its formulaic but whenever the producers deviated from the formula, the box office tumbled. Let's face it, there aren't enough hardcore Bond fans to sustain the series; it has to appeal to a wider audience if it is to survive.
This is why I'm concerned with Casino Royale: we have a new Bond who seems to be engendering either rejection or apathy in a large percent of the public and a movie that seeks to ditch most of the elements that have made Bond a cinematic success. I see Licence to Kill all over again and I fear for the health of the franchise.
Welcome to the board TonyDP (What took you??) and another "Thank yoooouuuuuuu! ". I made the case earlier of audience apathy and from most people I've spoken to over the past week I got it loud and clear. I'm glad I'm plugged in to a train of thought, and not am individual one.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
I'm a longtime James Bond fan (going on 30 years) but new to this board. While I'm particularly disappointed with how the producers have handled Pierce Brosnan's departure from the role, the signing of Daniel Craig as Bond and the general direction for Casino Royale have me concerned for several reasons:
1) A poll on CNN.com about audience perceptions about Craig as Bond shows that 50% of the respondents don't care at all; less than 10% approve of Craig. Over the past 15 years, Bond's fortunes at the box office (at least here in America) have been inextricably linked to the actor playing him. Timothy Dalton (who was a very good Bond and right out of Fleming's books) was greeted with indifference; just as Craig appears to be engendering now. Conversely, when Pierce Brosnan assumed the mantle the general public welcomed him with open arms and all of his films were commercial successes. Even if you didn't like them, you can't argue with the success he brought back to the series.
2) The producers are using predictable buzzwords to describe Casino Royale: darker, grittier, back to basics, edgier, etc. The last time I heard this was during License to Kill. Again, that movie was received with indifference in America and sent the franchise into dormancy for 7 long years.
While hardcore Bond fans would welcome a Bond true to his literary roots; the average moviegoer could care less. When it comes to a Bond movie, the average moviegoer expects a spectacle with over the top stunts, beautiful women, cool gadgets, and a suave handsome Bond. I know its formulaic but whenever the producers deviated from the formula, the box office tumbled. Let's face it, there aren't enough hardcore Bond fans to sustain the series; it has to appeal to a wider audience if it is to survive.
This is why I'm concerned with Casino Royale: we have a new Bond who seems to be engendering either rejection or apathy in a large percent of the public and a movie that seeks to ditch most of the elements that have made Bond a cinematic success. I see Licence to Kill all over again and I fear for the health of the franchise.
TonyDP
Great point and welcome to the boards!
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Welcome to the board TonyDP (What took you??) and another "Thank yoooouuuuuuu! ". I made the case earlier of audience apathy and from most people I've spoken to over the past week I got it loud and clear. I'm glad I'm plugged in to a train of thought, and not am imdividual one.
Glad to be here; and I'm not completely new. My Brother, spectreisland, has been posting for some time.
Everything is cyclical i find, certainly regarding the Bond franchise, they seem to go from one extreme to another. somewhere in between we get a good Bond Film, no doubt what we regard as good will be different from the next poster. No one can tell me that every Bond film is great, most have there individual merits some are just god dam awful. The jury must still be out on this and perhaps we should turn cynisism into reluctant optimism... no ones buying this are they lol
The bottom line is whats done is done, its over to Campbell and Hagis now!
They way EON threw away Pierce, who for 8 years gave them & the fans great success, and gave away the film that he richly deserved & would have been great in it, just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I can,t wait to see CR, but I am not excited about it.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I feel strongly that Pierce Brosnan was largely responsible for reviving the franchise in 1995 and I doubt seriously the last 4 movies would have been as successful with another lead as Bond.
I can't shake the feeling that the producers could not come to terms with the fact that Brosnan was becoming more popular than the character he was playing and, in their arrogance, they needed to go in another direction to prove that Bond is bigger than any actor playing him. Time will tell if they were right but no matter how Casino Royale turns out, their shabby treatment of Brosnan will always cast a blemish over the series for me.
They way EON threw away Pierce, who for 8 years gave them & the fans great success, and gave away the film that he richly deserved & would have been great in it, just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I can,t wait to see CR, but I am not excited about it.
Yeah i think you are right in that respect, pierce deserved a shot at Casino royale for sure. I have always felt he had a better bond film in him, its a shame he finished with the debacle that was DAD.
They way EON threw away Pierce, who for 8 years gave them & the fans great success, and gave away the film that he richly deserved & would have been great in it, just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I can,t wait to see CR, but I am not excited about it.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I feel strongly that Pierce Brosnan was largely responsible for reviving the franchise in 1995 and I doubt seriously the last 4 movies would have been as successful with another lead as Bond.
I can't shake the feeling that the producers could not come to terms with the fact that Brosnan was becoming more popular than the character he was playing and, in their arrogance, they needed to go in another direction to prove that Bond is bigger than any actor playing him. Time will tell if they were right but no matter how Casino Royale turns out, their shabby treatment of Brosnan will always cast a blemish over the series for me.
TonyDP
Despite the millions coming in, it would seem Eon would not pay the money Pierce probably deserved... if Cubby were alive! things would be different we all know it.
Comments
I find all this weeping and wailing over Craigs appointment a little odd and extremely premature.
I said earlier Craig was not my choice, but for all the reasons M Hazard points out, it might just work out very well.
People were very quick to dismiss Lazenby and Dalton and in my opion, missed out on three very good films.I wouldn't like to see that happen to Craig.It's because there have been changes made over the years that has enabled the series to continue.
There is no doubt as Bond fans that there are some interesting times ahead for us.
Whats the worst that could happen here?? Its not going to finish the series and if it doesn't work, the producers will change it.For those of you that insist if Cubby were here,it wouldn't be happening I beg to differ.Cubby wanted Lazenby to continue in the role and he was also set to have Dalton return in a third.Both of which were unpopular decisions.
Everyone was moaning about change ...Well, you got it folks!! Get with the programme....
As a side note ... I wasn't impressed with his litle slip at the press conference.Maybe it was nerves, afterall he is an extremely private individual.From that point he reminds me of Tim Dalton who also refused to answere personal questions at his press conference.I hope he doesn't have the same issues with all the publicity and intrusion which seemed to cause TD more problems than anything else.
Everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt, though i just think it shows how so many people have different expectations of what Bond should be. I think 20 years ago many people would not argue so much against the decision, i think people have just lost faith in Eon's (namely wilson,s) decision making. But everyone deserves a crack of the whip for sure, i love Bond and thats enough of a reason for me to go see the film and give it a chnace.
Dude---you're out of line.
If you read my quote, what I said was: "JAMES BOND IS DEAD. LONG LIVE JAMES BOND." What this indicates is a changing of the guard; I suppose the Brits will get this more than the Yanks. In the old days, when a king died and was succeeded, the announcement was, "The King is dead. Long live the King."
The rest of my post (if you actually read it) takes pains to give Daniel Craig the benefit of the doubt.
It's one thing to be ignorant, sir; but it's quite another to flaunt that ignorance on the world wide web. 8-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
As an actor, he runs circles around Clive Owen and the other names being brought up. He has charisma, but with a darker edge. No, he isn't the best looking candidate. But personally, I think casting an ACTOR for Bond rather than just some generic pretty face suggests that Bond will be a 3-Dimensional character in the new film.
And some of you are being very immature. "He's ugly!" "This is the death of the franchise!" Boo-hoo. Daniel Craig has been cast - and in my opinion its a great choice - and no amount of whining and moaning is going to change that.
So try and be optimistic. You call yourslef fans - so act like fans. We have a new Bond! It's time to get excited about November 2006...
I'm a Yank and I got it.
"The King is Dead, Long live the King."
In my opinion, we ARE acting like fans. How often have fans of a particular sports team complained when the team owner dismisses a star player or great coach and then brings in someone who strikes them as unlikely? Does this mean they've stopped being fans of the team and are now going to cheer for another one? It is because those fans love and care about their team that they want their displeasure to be heard. I think we as Bond fans have a right and--dare I say it?--a duty to demand that EON really deliver this time out. The last thing we should do is roll over and say, "Whatever is fine with you, Mickey and Babs, is fine with us!"
I am very disappointed in the choice of Craig as 007, but I like to believe that I am an open minded person, so I am going to go rent Layer Cake and await the release of Casino Royale before passing harsh judgement. I saw Road to Perdition a couple of years ago, and it never would have occured to me that this man would be a good 007 in a million years. Maybe they saw something I didn't.
I strongly believe that there is a certain duty to hold "the powers that be's" feet to the fire. If we didn't voice our passions then they might feel they could cast whomever grossly not qualified and we'd just accept it.
Although we are but a fraction(this board) of an enormous franchise that we are feeding into, they should take heed and not try and force feed us when the mood strikes them.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Martin Campbell? Good choice
Paul Haggis? Good choice
No Moneypenny? Bad Choice
No Q? Not necessarily a bad choice
Daniel Craig? I'm not disappointed, I'm going to wait and see.
I'm not making any judgements until I've left the cinema, after having seen it.
Craig played Paul Newman's idiot son. It was a very effective performance, but not one which would lead one to think, "Wow! This guy could be Bond!"
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Makes me proud to be an American to hear someone with ideals that reflect pure democracy.
He was a nut! But so was his character in the comic book.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Ah yeah i remember, agreed not something that would lead you to Bond. I am no doubt gonna look at all his previous films so ill give it a look. Can only remember him realy in Tomb Raider: blah blah blah (it was a long title), was not what you call great but was not bad... the script for that film was none existant to be fair to all involved.
I did believe it could be possible though. The Express and Star isn't like the Sun who report fake stuff like this all the time.
I honestly think he'll make an awful Bond and I'm just pretty much praying he'll only do one film.
But I'll still be sitting there with my best mate at the first showing.
I'll probably still go see it 5 times though.
A script is perhaps the most important thing in a movie. Given a bad, underwritten script, even a dashing actor who looks every bit the way James Bond should look won't be able to turn the film into a classic. However, at least the audience watching him won't have to spend too much energy suspending their disbelief to accept him as 007. Imagine having to do that for 2 hours, on top of having to watch a film with a weak script. That would be 2 hours in purgatory! A good script by Haggis may be able to save Craig's behind in CR, but if the scriptwriters falter for the next one, watch out...
A lack of physical attractiveness doesn't guarantee grittiness or edginess. A good script would take care of those things. Now, a good script coupled with a believable 007 would be a brilliant movie. Alas, we won't see that kind of movie with Craig.
Today is a bad day: Pierce will never be bond again
Today is still a good day: Daniel Craig was the best choice but Brosnan.
1) A poll on CNN.com about audience perceptions about Craig as Bond shows that 50% of the respondents don't care at all; less than 10% approve of Craig. Over the past 15 years, Bond's fortunes at the box office (at least here in America) have been inextricably linked to the actor playing him. Timothy Dalton (who was a very good Bond and right out of Fleming's books) was greeted with indifference; just as Craig appears to be engendering now. Conversely, when Pierce Brosnan assumed the mantle the general public welcomed him with open arms and all of his films were commercial successes. Even if you didn't like them, you can't argue with the success he brought back to the series.
2) The producers are using predictable buzzwords to describe Casino Royale: darker, grittier, back to basics, edgier, etc. The last time I heard this was during License to Kill. Again, that movie was received with indifference in America and sent the franchise into dormancy for 7 long years.
While hardcore Bond fans would welcome a Bond true to his literary roots; the average moviegoer could care less. When it comes to a Bond movie, the average moviegoer expects a spectacle with over the top stunts, beautiful women, cool gadgets, and a suave handsome Bond. I know its formulaic but whenever the producers deviated from the formula, the box office tumbled. Let's face it, there aren't enough hardcore Bond fans to sustain the series; it has to appeal to a wider audience if it is to survive.
This is why I'm concerned with Casino Royale: we have a new Bond who seems to be engendering either rejection or apathy in a large percent of the public and a movie that seeks to ditch most of the elements that have made Bond a cinematic success. I see Licence to Kill all over again and I fear for the health of the franchise.
TonyDP
Great point and welcome to the boards!
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Glad to be here; and I'm not completely new. My Brother, spectreisland, has been posting for some time.
The bottom line is whats done is done, its over to Campbell and Hagis now!
You took the words right out of my mouth. I feel strongly that Pierce Brosnan was largely responsible for reviving the franchise in 1995 and I doubt seriously the last 4 movies would have been as successful with another lead as Bond.
I can't shake the feeling that the producers could not come to terms with the fact that Brosnan was becoming more popular than the character he was playing and, in their arrogance, they needed to go in another direction to prove that Bond is bigger than any actor playing him. Time will tell if they were right but no matter how Casino Royale turns out, their shabby treatment of Brosnan will always cast a blemish over the series for me.
TonyDP
Yeah i think you are right in that respect, pierce deserved a shot at Casino royale for sure. I have always felt he had a better bond film in him, its a shame he finished with the debacle that was DAD.
Despite the millions coming in, it would seem Eon would not pay the money Pierce probably deserved... if Cubby were alive! things would be different we all know it.