Congratulations, Mr. Craig. You weren't my first choice---in fact, you were pretty close to my last choice (just before Vern Troyer), but now that you've been cast, I wish you all the best, and you will receive the benefit of my doubt...via one purchased ticket for admission to 'Casino Royale' on opening day. Whether I purchase additional tickets is up to you...and the filmmakers.
I've said my share of negative things about your aesthetically-challenged features, your vertically-challenged height and your smaller-than-usual body frame. All of these are part of who you are, and they will thus be a part of your interpretation of the role.
This won't be a picnic for you, Mr. Craig. You have a hostile fan-base, and you've already been co-opted by a wretched bourgeois poker fad, so you won't have the class of a Baccarat game to buttress you.
My advice to you: Use your new capital with Eon (such as it is) to insist on a few things in the script. Your Bond should be more fastidious, like Fleming's literary character, to offset what some might see as your deficient areas. Tell Campbell you don't want to just order a Martini, "shaken not stirred." Provide complete preparation instructions for the bartender, as your literary counterpart did in the novel. You should be able to tell the difference between a vodka made from grain instead of potatoes. You should be equally picky about your food, and clothing. You should straighten your tie, after brutally killing a man, within the first five minutes of the film's beginning. You should be urbane and smooth in your delivery of the lines, and determine the precise amount of cocky arrogance necessary for you to allow this iconic character to occupy your skin on the big screen.
And, 007? Try not to muck it up. :007)
Another addendum:
Martin Campbell said in the press conference that in CR we will actually learn the ingredients of the Martini. I think that's very cool.
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
For me it is a sad day...and not only because its raining like crazy here - but because we all know Craig is cast as Bond...to me it just doesn't make sense - the guy does not fit the role of Bond...seeing pictures from the announcement earlier today I could only cringe as I watch Craig sit next to Barbara...as she STARES at him...I really hope shes happy, because it seems a vast majority of us arent at all.
BTW - I wonder what security was like to try n keep Brosnan out...I can picture him being along side a news reporter, and at the right moment jumping over the table and screaming "The role is MINE!!" as he's tackled by a few security guards
) I'm really picturing that last part.
I could imagine a mass brawl with Moore, Connery and Dalton jumping in on a rocket powered zimmer frames. With an indifferent Lazenby moaning about too many gadgets lol
Go on give the man a go the Bond franchise was on its last legs tell pierce brosnan got the job and feedback was the same What is with this nonsense let him make the thing first then make a comment on him and not just jump on the band wagon like lemmings
Ladies an gentlemen, with your indulgence, a not-so-brief look at the past.
I) When Sean Connery was first announced as Bond in 1962 the brass at United Artists was, shall we say, less than impressed. If not for Broccoli and Saltzman sticking to their guns in their belief that Connery enbodied the physical ruggedness required for the role, we would not be present in this 007 forum or any other for that matter.Ian Fleming was initially appalled over the choice of Connery (prefering David Niven instead) Terence Young campaigned for Richard Johnson. Cary Grant and James Mason would easily have become Bond if not for their reluctance to do a series. In the end, not only did Connery prove his nay-sayers wrong (particularly Fleming who became a Connery fan) but the decision to cast him has , in retrospect, changed the face of pop-culture history. (PS: Cubby's wife, Dana, always instrumental in her husband's decisions, raved about Sean, perhaps being the first woman to foretell the electrifying effect Connery would have on women as Bond.Could her daughter's gut-instinct for Craig have a similiar consequence?)
2)George Lazenby walking into the role of Bond in 1969 was the equivalent of being the following act after the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show in Feb/1964. (Frank Gorshin?) In other words, good luck, old boy, you're going to need it.
No matter which actor was chosen, OHMSS would forever be in the Connery shadow. Lazenby foolishly walked away from the role (pound for pound, the absolute stupidest actor's decision in film history). Time has been kind to both George and the film. Indeed, OHMSS is now an acknowledged Bond classic and ,despite some fans opinions, Lazenby (with absolutely zero acting experience) turns in a terrific turn as OO7.
Good choice , with a multitude of what-if possibilities.
3) After toying with the idea of John Gavin and Burt Reynolds as Bond, the producers went with good ol' Roger at a time when the series needed a stabilizing force after the chaos of the post-YOLT years. Roger was the perfect fit: suave, debonair, dependable and fun-loving. The missing link between Connery and Brosnan, Roger's Bond has always been the most divisive amongst fans (both in 1972 before LALD was released and even now in 2005). If there was an internet at the time of his casting , the Bond forums would have reflected the same backlash developing today for Daniel Craig. 12 years, 7 films and a billion or so dollars later, Roger was adored by the public and converted a few Connery die-hards (myself included) into a new-found appreciation for his 007. In a way he was Dr.Jekyll to Connery's Hyde: efortlessly charming and polished with the air of breeding that smacked of Fleming ,all Roger ever lacked was the physical brutality that both Connery and Lazenby had in spades. His 007 is the one that ages like wine: as the years go by, the appreciation will increase.
4) I clearly remember the post-AVTAK Bond speculation (anyone remember Finlay Light?). It was time for a new Bond and the heir-apparent seemed to be Pierce, without a doubt. Other names were considered (Sam Neill,Liam Neeson,Bryan Brown,even Mel Gibson) but there seemed to be no doubt that Pierce was the man destined for 007. Of course, legal entanglements prevented this, which opened the door for long-time Cubby favorite, Timothy Dalton. Not well-known in North America ,the gut reaction seemed to be that Dalton got the role by default. Similiar to George, Dalton was in the unfortunate position of having to follow a popular Bond. The shift in tone and temperment from Roger to Timothy was so sudden and startling (especially to NorthAmerican audiences) that
it has taken a few years to truly appreciate the gamble Dalton took in his 007. (Personal note: when I first saw TLD in 1987 I was floored by Dalton but was aware of being in the minority in my appreciation. My gut told me that this 007 will become the cult Bond of the future. I'm happy to be proven right. There are enough Daltonites out there to hold my jacket in case I ever need to defend Dalton's 007 from any nay-sayers in the crowd). Dalton was absolutely necessary to the evolution of the series, Ruthless, moody, even mean-spirited, his OO7 will be the template in the future for any attempt to capture Fleming's Bond.
5) When Pierce fulfilled his life-long destiny by stepping into the tux in I995 there seemed to be a tangible sense of relief in the Bond world.
Not only was Bond back after a too-long absence but there was a sense Pierce would set things right after the too-light Roger years and too-dark Dalton films. Everyone , it seems, was satisfied with the choice ( the first and, so far, only time that the choice for 007 was universally accepted), everyone, except this humble writer." Disaster", I said, to anyone who cared to listen, "He's too light..not tough enough...too much of a pretty boy...couldn't handle an Oddjob or Red Grant...terrible decision!" For months before GE was released I was convinced that there is no way Brosnan could work as 007. "In two words...im---possible!" I grumbled. I clearly remember sitting down in that theater in I995 with arms crossed, practically daring the film to impress me! The result? The single biggest suprise in 30 years of Bond-watching. I was stunned! Pierce actually impressive in the PTS! More than impressive, terrific, in fact! The way he moved, the gun held just right, the toughness already in place, his reaction to 006 being shot, everything was working perfectly. By the time he hides behind the squeaking trolley I have already been converted and when he catches the plane after the motorcycle jump I am ready to sign any paper which will erase any slanderous remarks I had made in the previous months. I was delighted,not only because was Bond was back in good hands , but also for the fact that the Bond lineage survives intact. The no5 007 is a worthy addition to the first four.
Forgive my long-windedness, but I was slightly disheartened by all the negative comments concerning the new Bond. History shows that each new OO7 has had to overcome both initial skepticism and the daunting legacy established by the preceding Bonds.
I have never seen a frame of film of Daniel Craig (and I don't intend to until CR) but my gut feeling is wow, thats a gutsy decision by the producers. A ruggedly handsome blond Bond. I have a feeling he's going to be terrific, don't ask me why, just a guess. How about this for proof? Despite a nay-sayer here and there, all five Bonds have turned out to be wonderful choices in the long run. No reason for that pattern to change now.
Good luck to Daniel Craig and hopefully he, and the producers, will experience a little cutting of the thing called slack by tough-but fair Bond fans the world over.
Great post, lets hope you are right. Until we see the opening sequence we will not know for sure. If campbell can do what he did with goldneye im sure the film will be good. Craig? well the proof will be in the pudding.
Ladies an gentlemen, with your indulgence, a not-so-brief look at the past.
I) When Sean Connery was first announced as Bond in 1962 the brass at United Artists was, shall we say, less than impressed. If not for Broccoli and Saltzman sticking to their guns in their belief that Connery enbodied the physical ruggedness required for the role, we would not be present in this 007 forum or any other for that matter.Ian Fleming was initially appalled over the choice of Connery (prefering David Niven instead) Terence Young campaigned for Richard Johnson. Cary Grant and James Mason would easily have become Bond if not for their reluctance to do a series. In the end, not only did Connery prove his nay-sayers wrong (particularly Fleming who became a Connery fan) but the decision to cast him has , in retrospect, changed the face of pop-culture history. (PS: Cubby's wife, Dana, always instrumental in her husband's decisions, raved about Sean, perhaps being the first woman to foretell the electrifying effect Connery would have on women as Bond.Could her daughter's gut-instinct for Craig have a similiar consequence?)
2)George Lazenby walking into the role of Bond in 1969 was the equivalent of being the following act after the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show in Feb/1964. (Frank Gorshin?) In other words, good luck, old boy, you're going to need it.
No matter which actor was chosen, OHMSS would forever be in the Connery shadow. Lazenby foolishly walked away from the role (pound for pound, the absolute stupidest actor's decision in film history). Time has been kind to both George and the film. Indeed, OHMSS is now an acknowledged Bond classic and ,despite some fans opinions, Lazenby (with absolutely zero acting experience) turns in a terrific turn as OO7.
Good choice , with a multitude of what-if possibilities.
3) After toying with the idea of John Gavin and Burt Reynolds as Bond, the producers went with good ol' Roger at a time when the series needed a stabilizing force after the chaos of the post-YOLT years. Roger was the perfect fit: suave, debonair, dependable and fun-loving. The missing link between Connery and Brosnan, Roger's Bond has always been the most divisive amongst fans (both in 1972 before LALD was released and even now in 2005). If there was an internet at the time of his casting , the Bond forums would have reflected the same backlash developing today for Daniel Craig. 12 years, 7 films and a billion or so dollars later, Roger was adored by the public and converted a few Connery die-hards (myself included) into a new-found appreciation for his 007. In a way he was Dr.Jekyll to Connery's Hyde: efortlessly charming and polished with the air of breeding that smacked of Fleming ,all Roger ever lacked was the physical brutality that both Connery and Lazenby had in spades. His 007 is the one that ages like wine: as the years go by, the appreciation will increase.
4) I clearly remember the post-AVTAK Bond speculation (anyone remember Finlay Light?). It was time for a new Bond and the heir-apparent seemed to be Pierce, without a doubt. Other names were considered (Sam Neill,Liam Neeson,Bryan Brown,even Mel Gibson) but there seemed to be no doubt that Pierce was the man destined for 007. Of course, legal entanglements prevented this, which opened the door for long-time Cubby favorite, Timothy Dalton. Not well-known in North America ,the gut reaction seemed to be that Dalton got the role by default. Similiar to George, Dalton was in the unfortunate position of having to follow a popular Bond. The shift in tone and temperment from Roger to Timothy was so sudden and startling (especially to NorthAmerican audiences) that
it has taken a few years to truly appreciate the gamble Dalton took in his 007. (Personal note: when I first saw TLD in 1987 I was floored by Dalton but was aware of being in the minority in my appreciation. My gut told me that this 007 will become the cult Bond of the future. I'm happy to be proven right. There are enough Daltonites out there to hold my jacket in case I ever need to defend Dalton's 007 from any nay-sayers in the crowd). Dalton was absolutely necessary to the evolution of the series, Ruthless, moody, even mean-spirited, his OO7 will be the template in the future for any attempt to capture Fleming's Bond.
5) When Pierce fulfilled his life-long destiny by stepping into the tux in I995 there seemed to be a tangible sense of relief in the Bond world.
Not only was Bond back after a too-long absence but there was a sense Pierce would set things right after the too-light Roger years and too-dark Dalton films. Everyone , it seems, was satisfied with the choice ( the first and, so far, only time that the choice for 007 was universally accepted), everyone, except this humble writer." Disaster", I said, to anyone who cared to listen, "He's too light..not tough enough...too much of a pretty boy...couldn't handle an Oddjob or Red Grant...terrible decision!" For months before GE was released I was convinced that there is no way Brosnan could work as 007. "In two words...im---possible!" I grumbled. I clearly remember sitting down in that theater in I995 with arms crossed, practically daring the film to impress me! The result? The single biggest suprise in 30 years of Bond-watching. I was stunned! Pierce actually impressive in the PTS! More than impressive, terrific, in fact! The way he moved, the gun held just right, the toughness already in place, his reaction to 006 being shot, everything was working perfectly. By the time he hides behind the squeaking trolley I have already been converted and when he catches the plane after the motorcycle jump I am ready to sign any paper which will erase any slanderous remarks I had made in the previous months. I was delighted,not only because was Bond was back in good hands , but also for the fact that the Bond lineage survives intact. The no5 007 is a worthy addition to the first four.
Forgive my long-windedness, but I was slightly disheartened by all the negative comments concerning the new Bond. History shows that each new OO7 has had to overcome both initial skepticism and the daunting legacy established by the preceding Bonds.
I have never seen a frame of film of Daniel Craig (and I don't intend to until CR) but my gut feeling is wow, thats a gutsy decision by the producers. A ruggedly handsome blond Bond. I have a feeling he's going to be terrific, don't ask me why, just a guess. How about this for proof? Despite a nay-sayer here and there, all five Bonds have turned out to be wonderful choices in the long run. No reason for that pattern to change now.
Good luck to Daniel Craig and hopefully he, and the producers, will experience a little cutting of the thing called slack by tough-but fair Bond fans the world over.
Great post!
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited October 2005
My compliments, bigzilcho---not only with your name (which rocks! ), but with your posting.
You're going to be a fine addition to this most erudite (and divided!) community. :007)
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
It's interesting that the reaction here is much more negative concerning Daniel Craig than it is over at Cbn. For me personally i'm ambivalent--i'll give him a shot and if he doesn't pull it off then i'll join the chorus of negativity.
He was my last choice but I'm going to see Casino Royale and hold out hope it will be a decent movie but I think box office wise it will struggle in the US compared to the last four Bond movies.
For me this is all going to depend on the movie. For all my discontent now I KNOW that I WILL still see this movie, probably on opening day because for me it would be tragic not to be the first to see it...WITH THAT SAID - as bigzilcho put it - "I am daring this movie to impress me", odds are I too will be sitting there - arms folded, and in the back of my mind I really want this to fail, yet at the same time I would jump for joy if this movie wowed me...I'm so torn, the moment I saw the "offical" picture of Craig I was starting not too mind so much - then I reverted back to the pictures of the press conference and such and instantly I was brought back down to earth...
Eye of the Tiger, where is your optimisim!? I need to hear Pierce will still be back - that's the only thing that kept me sane during this whole Craig episode...hahaha
For me this is all going to depend on the movie. For all my discontent now I KNOW that I WILL still see this movie, probably on opening day because for me it would be tragic not to be the first to see it...WITH THAT SAID - as bigzilcho put it - "I am daring this movie to impress me", odds are I too will be sitting there - arms folded, and in the back of my mind I really want this to fail, yet at the same time I would jump for joy if this movie wowed me...I'm so torn, the moment I saw the "offical" picture of Craig I was starting not too mind so much - then I reverted back to the pictures of the press conference and such and instantly I was brought back down to earth...
Eye of the Tiger, where is your optimisim!? I need to hear Pierce will still be back - that's the only thing that kept me sane during this whole Craig episode...hahaha
what ever we may all think and say about this, it aint gonna be worse than DAD. that film was BAD with a capital B A D. So i suppose we can be optimistic?
For me this is all going to depend on the movie. For all my discontent now I KNOW that I WILL still see this movie, probably on opening day because for me it would be tragic not to be the first to see it...WITH THAT SAID - as bigzilcho put it - "I am daring this movie to impress me", odds are I too will be sitting there - arms folded, and in the back of my mind I really want this to fail, yet at the same time I would jump for joy if this movie wowed me...I'm so torn, the moment I saw the "offical" picture of Craig I was starting not too mind so much - then I reverted back to the pictures of the press conference and such and instantly I was brought back down to earth...
Eye of the Tiger, where is your optimisim!? I need to hear Pierce will still be back - that's the only thing that kept me sane during this whole Craig episode...hahaha
what ever we may all think and say about this, it aint gonna be worse than DAD. that film was BAD with a capital B A D. So i suppose we can be optimistic?
That's so true, haha -- but then again can you imagine DAD with Craig in it???
For me this is all going to depend on the movie. For all my discontent now I KNOW that I WILL still see this movie, probably on opening day because for me it would be tragic not to be the first to see it...WITH THAT SAID - as bigzilcho put it - "I am daring this movie to impress me", odds are I too will be sitting there - arms folded, and in the back of my mind I really want this to fail, yet at the same time I would jump for joy if this movie wowed me...I'm so torn, the moment I saw the "offical" picture of Craig I was starting not too mind so much - then I reverted back to the pictures of the press conference and such and instantly I was brought back down to earth...
Eye of the Tiger, where is your optimisim!? I need to hear Pierce will still be back - that's the only thing that kept me sane during this whole Craig episode...hahaha
what ever we may all think and say about this, it aint gonna be worse than DAD. that film was BAD with a capital B A D. So i suppose we can be optimistic?
That's so true, haha -- but then again can you imagine DAD with Craig in it???
I wish him well even though he is not my first choice. I wish that they could have come to terms with Pierce for his Bond Swansong. A major problem that I forsee is his marketability. How does one promote someone without the debonaire looks and charms of Brosnan? I can't picture his face on let's say an Omega Watch ad or on a child's action figure. His particular looks just don't lend themselves to that kind of exposure. Maybe they'll prove me wrong. We'll see!
At this point I want to know from anyone who was opposed to having Craig in the role( for upteen million reasons why he shouldn't) as to why they are still going to see the movie? Someone explain the logic behind that. For the story line??? Well there will be a villain and he will try to take over the world and Bond has to save the day. Basic Bond story. With that out of the way again I ask, why are you going? To support the movie studio? Like they don't already make enough money. For the terrible actor in the role? When was the last time you ran to the theater to waste time and money to watch a movie with an actor you didn't like?
At this point I want to know from anyone who was opposed to having Craig in the role( for upteen million reasons why he shouldn't) as to why they are still going to see the movie? Someone explain the logic behind that. For the story line??? Well there will be a villain and he will try to take over the world and Bond has to save the day. Basic Bond story. With that out of the way again I ask, why are you going? To support the movie studio? Like they don't already make enough money. For the terrible actor in the role? When was the last time you ran to the theater to waste time and money to watch a movie with an actor you didn't like?
A very fair question, satch.
I was quite opposed to Craig, but I am COMPLETELY devoted to James Bond---as a series of literary novels by Ian Fleming, as a series of films by Eon, as a concept, as an icon, etc...
I will go see the film because I am a Bond junkie. Eon/Sony has the drug, and I'm hooked, so I'm going to line up for my hit.
In addition, I will allow for the possibility that my initial impressions were ill-informed, and therefore unavoidably incomplete. I'm going to give this bloke a chance because I'm a writer---therefore, I am a dreamer---and I can accept that remarkable and unexplainable things are possible.
I prescribe a vodka martini, and several deep, relaxed breaths... :007)
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
At this point I want to know from anyone who was opposed to having Craig in the role( for upteen million reasons why he shouldn't) as to why they are still going to see the movie?
Just for the record, I still won't see the movie, but truth to be told it has nothing to do with Craig... Not exclusively...
First of all, I would like to say that I am not completely ****ed off, but I am disappointed. Getting Pierce back would not only guarantee a box office success, but also a chance for me to see the Bond of my generation one last time. Pierce does not look to old. I think he could pull off the role one more time, but I guess now his chance of ever returning has been diminished. Let's say CR bombs with Craig (I hope it does not), then EON will be looking for another actor. I thought maybe they could ask Pierce back like they did Sean, but he will be too old by then, especially for them.
At least Daniel Craig is English, a good height, and a decent age. I have seen him act in "Road To Perdition" and "Tomb Raider" and he is a good actor. However, I also do not believe that he is right for Bond. He would be great as a Bond villian, seriously. He had better dye his hair.
Having said all this, I am going to give Daniel Craig a chance. I am going to walk into the theater withan open mind and try to enjoy it. Even if he does not do so well, I hope that a great script and other great actors can make up for it.
Also, I agree with The Cat and others that they had better stop with this "Bond Begins" prequel B.S. The movies have not been in the order of the books, so why don't they just use the story of CR and continue the franchise like they always have. They had better have M played by Dame Judi Dench. Q and Moneypenny had better make appearances as well. We all know that this film will not be full of gadgets. Stil, I believe Q should still be in it, even if it is for a minute or two. Desmond has short appearances like that all the time.
Finally, I would like to remind all of you what today is. It is ROGER MOORE'S FREAKING 78TH BIRTHDAY! How dare EON bring us such controversial and grim news on his birthday. Why is he is being insulted on here???? People have been saying things like "He has never been in a fight in his life and Daniel Craig looks like could beat up anyone". Roger Moore was not blonde. He had nice hair. Daniel Craig does not.
Happy Birthday, Roger Moore! You are my favorite Bond!
I am a long standing Bond fan of 32 years, I have been a member at AJB for almost three years. Today should have been one of the most exciting days of all. A new Bond actor is revealed who will star in a film that features a substantial amount of Fleming source material. Yet, today has been a real anti-climax. Apart from it being Sir Roger's birthday.
I have real sympathy with some of the members here who genuinely feel so let down and disillusioned by it all. I am talking about those who's opinion that I have come to respect, even if I do not always agree with them. Personally, I feel just.........flat, but not depressed. I guess as I am getting older that I am becoming more immune to life's little knock's. And to put it into it's real perspective, nobody's died.
I really do wish Daniel Craig all the best. I see him more as a Bond villain. However, I very much believe in the benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty and all that. So, I will go and watch Casino Royale to see if he can prove me wrong. I urge all those Bond fans like me who think that Craig is unsuitable to go and see the film also. And don't think that by seeing CR you are condoning Eon's choice of Craig. A substantial amount of Bond box office comes from the hardcore who go and see the films numerous times. So, when you do go and see Casino Royale and if your worst fears are confirmed just don't see it again and don't buy any merchandise DVD's etc. Eon will soon get the message. And if they don't Sony will.
Just supposing Craig exceeds all expectations. What a lovely bonus that would be. And if he doesn't there could still be enough to entertain us all in CR.
And another thing, please stop the personal attacks on Craig. He has done nothing wrong. I really dislike the word "ugly". Forgive the pun, but I think that it's an "ugly" word.
This is my first post here but i been a watcher here for years and all these negative posts made me join up.Sorry if I start my first post on the wrong note but here it goes.
Well I'm excited about this appointment I will admit he wasn't my first choice but i have felt for a long while that bond has needed a new direction. Daniel has got a face that looks ex service even an SAS look to his face, he has a look that has seen some action and he will add a ice cold killer streak to bond.
I was knocked off my feet by him the first time i saw him in Elizebeth a few years ago he was only onscreen for a few minutes and cut he through the screen.
Maybe this isnt everyones ideal bond but i have been reading on the forums for years about unhappy Bond fans that want a change, so lets get a great looking brown haired bloke with model looks, so where does this give us a new aproach to bond?
I'm excited by this very brave move and i'm praying that Daniel proves us all wrong and lights up that screen.
I have never bought the complexity that Brosnan has supposed to have given Bond, look in daniels eyes and you can see years of vodkas silencing the screams of all the ladies he couldn't save.
I want that connery chill back, i want to see cruel wit and above all I want to beleave these atributes in Bond.
Has Daniel Craig got these atributes Yes I beleave so, has he got brown hair and model looks No.
I just want something different so please let this be it, I cant stand another Die another day.
I have an odd feeling that today is going to be like the movie Groundhog Day with Bill Muarry -- and I'm just going to keep repeating this OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER...hahaha
Whoah. As a bond fan for the last 25 years, today's events spurred me into seeking out a forum, just to see what the general opinion was. I made my first post this afternoon on this thread, not long after the announcement (about page 5 or 6 I think), then came back tonight and it's just taken me an hour to read through the ten pages that have been added.
If you'll indulge me, I've made a couple of notes:
Henry Cavell. Who?? If you're looking for a young pretender to take the Bond role in a few years time, you got the right film but the wrong person. Christian Bale is your man.
M Hazard, I agree with you when you say the first three films, OHMSS and Licence To Kill were the best as far as the purists (of which I am one) are concerned. But to say Tim Dalton was not a fine actor and lacked screen presence is just wrong. To date he is the only classically trained actor to play Bond, and at the time made the effort to study Fleming's books in order to perfect his character.
Carleton, yes, Bond started out on the page. Well done. But to say therefore he had "no look" suggests that you have never read any of those pages. Fleming described him on several occasions as looking like Hoagy Carmichael, a fact that, judging by his avatar, has not escaped Superado, who writes very well.
Bigzilcho, I was also very impressed with your posts. While I'll agree to differ with you on your opinion of Moore (I feel he outstayed his welcome), I agree holeheartedly with your views on Dalton who remains my favourite Bond.
Oh and Khan, you said you never heard anything about Roger Moore's mum. She used to live in Frinton-on-Sea in Essex. Will that do?
What is the greatest shame of all is that it took them two years to come up with this monstrosity of a decision. I don't believe it will devestate the series but I do believe that he will obviously overstay his welcome with all audiences by the time the words "Bond, James Bond" are uttered from his lips.
I simply need to know why he, of all the candidates, was the final choice. The James Bond franchise did not meet its end today but it was certainly wounded. I can only imagine the shock running through the minds of all the previous James Bond actors as they saw the headline. We miss you Peirce, Roger, Sean and at this point even George and Timothy.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,746Chief of Staff
edited October 2005
What a bunch of miserable *******s most of you appear to be ! Give the guy a chance for heavens sake, lets see what he can do - I'm willing to bet that most people on here haven't seen anything that Craig's been in. How many times have Eon got it wrong ?
Most of us had serious issues with DAD, so let's applaud Eon for the change. I had no issues with Brosnan and would have loved him to do one more, but that's in the past now. Let's also face the fact that whomever was to follow Brosnan had one hell of a job on his hands, I don't think any actor could deliver the box-office returns (in the role of Bond) that Brosnan has, so I don't think that can be used as a fair yardstick.
I'm hoping that Craig - along with a decent script - will deliver us a back-to-basics Bond film, more story less gadgets, more thriller less blockbuster.
I'm actually more concerned that Campbell isn't the right director for this type of film - I hope he proves me wrong.
What a bunch of miserable *******s most of you appear to be ! Give the guy a chance for heavens sake, lets see what he can do - I'm willing to bet that most people on here haven't seen anything that Craig's been in. How many times have Eon got it wrong ?
Most of us had serious issues with DAD, so let's applaud Eon for the change. I had no issues with Brosnan and would have loved him to do one more, but that's in the past now. Let's also face the fact that whomever was to follow Brosnan had one hell of a job on his hands, I don't think any actor could deliver the box-office returns (in the role of Bond) that Brosnan has, so I don't think that can be used as a fair yardstick.
I'm hoping that Craig - along with a decent script - will deliver us a back-to-basics Bond film, more story less gadgets, more thriller less blockbuster.
I'm actually more concerned that Campbell isn't the right director for this type of film - I hope he proves me wrong.
Hurrah! Finally, positive comments from a "higher authority" poster of AJB! All those who's opinions seem to respected have posted nothing but cynicism all day. "Anti-climax" this and "Blonde Hair" that. I made the same point about DAD being hated here so that people should welcome the change. I just hope this changes, I don't like the way AJB is being clouded by so many of the respected members flaunting their negative reactions around the forum. Both CBN and MI6 have more of a balance than this.
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Yes, I seemed to have had a change of heart. I'm gonna go watch Layer Cake at some point. By the way, the thing that worries me the most is the budget in excess of 100 million dollars. What could possibly cost that much in a gritty down to earth movie?
Yes, I seemed to have had a change of heart. I'm gonna go watch Layer Cake at some point. By the way, the thing that worries me the most is the budget in excess of 100 million dollars. What could possibly cost that much in a gritty down to earth movie?
Maybe they are figuring in the X millions of dollars they'll have to spend to sell the public on Craig as Bond?
A hard sell - I don't envy them that task or the $ amount it will cost and all at a huge risk if it doesn't work.
I wonder when the agreement or contract was signed. If in the US don't both parties have 72 hrs or 3 Business days to change their mind and cancel the contract???
If in the UK, is there any similar provision to contract law?
Imagine if they see the reaction and then back off. Hmmm, is there hope yet or am I just dreaming of a better end to this nightmare?
Comments
Another addendum:
Martin Campbell said in the press conference that in CR we will actually learn the ingredients of the Martini. I think that's very cool.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I could imagine a mass brawl with Moore, Connery and Dalton jumping in on a rocket powered zimmer frames. With an indifferent Lazenby moaning about too many gadgets lol
Great post, lets hope you are right. Until we see the opening sequence we will not know for sure. If campbell can do what he did with goldneye im sure the film will be good. Craig? well the proof will be in the pudding.
Great post!
You're going to be a fine addition to this most erudite (and divided!) community. :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Eye of the Tiger, where is your optimisim!? I need to hear Pierce will still be back - that's the only thing that kept me sane during this whole Craig episode...hahaha
what ever we may all think and say about this, it aint gonna be worse than DAD. that film was BAD with a capital B A D. So i suppose we can be optimistic?
That's so true, haha -- but then again can you imagine DAD with Craig in it???
what you trying to do give me nightmares
I'm with you, pass the tissue!
A very fair question, satch.
I was quite opposed to Craig, but I am COMPLETELY devoted to James Bond---as a series of literary novels by Ian Fleming, as a series of films by Eon, as a concept, as an icon, etc...
I will go see the film because I am a Bond junkie. Eon/Sony has the drug, and I'm hooked, so I'm going to line up for my hit.
In addition, I will allow for the possibility that my initial impressions were ill-informed, and therefore unavoidably incomplete. I'm going to give this bloke a chance because I'm a writer---therefore, I am a dreamer---and I can accept that remarkable and unexplainable things are possible.
I prescribe a vodka martini, and several deep, relaxed breaths... :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Just for the record, I still won't see the movie, but truth to be told it has nothing to do with Craig... Not exclusively...
God, he's ugly!!! Looking at him is the same sense of reality out of joint I get seeing Bush on TV...the thing that was not meant to be yet is! :-<
Edited by Moonraker 5 - 14/10/2005 - 16:35:34
Moonraker, that is a very interesting quote, I would LOVE to know where it is from please!
At least Daniel Craig is English, a good height, and a decent age. I have seen him act in "Road To Perdition" and "Tomb Raider" and he is a good actor. However, I also do not believe that he is right for Bond. He would be great as a Bond villian, seriously. He had better dye his hair.
Having said all this, I am going to give Daniel Craig a chance. I am going to walk into the theater withan open mind and try to enjoy it. Even if he does not do so well, I hope that a great script and other great actors can make up for it.
Also, I agree with The Cat and others that they had better stop with this "Bond Begins" prequel B.S. The movies have not been in the order of the books, so why don't they just use the story of CR and continue the franchise like they always have. They had better have M played by Dame Judi Dench. Q and Moneypenny had better make appearances as well. We all know that this film will not be full of gadgets. Stil, I believe Q should still be in it, even if it is for a minute or two. Desmond has short appearances like that all the time.
Finally, I would like to remind all of you what today is. It is ROGER MOORE'S FREAKING 78TH BIRTHDAY! How dare EON bring us such controversial and grim news on his birthday. Why is he is being insulted on here???? People have been saying things like "He has never been in a fight in his life and Daniel Craig looks like could beat up anyone". Roger Moore was not blonde. He had nice hair. Daniel Craig does not.
Happy Birthday, Roger Moore! You are my favorite Bond!
I have real sympathy with some of the members here who genuinely feel so let down and disillusioned by it all. I am talking about those who's opinion that I have come to respect, even if I do not always agree with them. Personally, I feel just.........flat, but not depressed. I guess as I am getting older that I am becoming more immune to life's little knock's. And to put it into it's real perspective, nobody's died.
I really do wish Daniel Craig all the best. I see him more as a Bond villain. However, I very much believe in the benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty and all that. So, I will go and watch Casino Royale to see if he can prove me wrong. I urge all those Bond fans like me who think that Craig is unsuitable to go and see the film also. And don't think that by seeing CR you are condoning Eon's choice of Craig. A substantial amount of Bond box office comes from the hardcore who go and see the films numerous times. So, when you do go and see Casino Royale and if your worst fears are confirmed just don't see it again and don't buy any merchandise DVD's etc. Eon will soon get the message. And if they don't Sony will.
Just supposing Craig exceeds all expectations. What a lovely bonus that would be. And if he doesn't there could still be enough to entertain us all in CR.
And another thing, please stop the personal attacks on Craig. He has done nothing wrong. I really dislike the word "ugly". Forgive the pun, but I think that it's an "ugly" word.
Well I'm excited about this appointment I will admit he wasn't my first choice but i have felt for a long while that bond has needed a new direction. Daniel has got a face that looks ex service even an SAS look to his face, he has a look that has seen some action and he will add a ice cold killer streak to bond.
I was knocked off my feet by him the first time i saw him in Elizebeth a few years ago he was only onscreen for a few minutes and cut he through the screen.
Maybe this isnt everyones ideal bond but i have been reading on the forums for years about unhappy Bond fans that want a change, so lets get a great looking brown haired bloke with model looks, so where does this give us a new aproach to bond?
I'm excited by this very brave move and i'm praying that Daniel proves us all wrong and lights up that screen.
I have never bought the complexity that Brosnan has supposed to have given Bond, look in daniels eyes and you can see years of vodkas silencing the screams of all the ladies he couldn't save.
I want that connery chill back, i want to see cruel wit and above all I want to beleave these atributes in Bond.
Has Daniel Craig got these atributes Yes I beleave so, has he got brown hair and model looks No.
I just want something different so please let this be it, I cant stand another Die another day.
If you'll indulge me, I've made a couple of notes:
Henry Cavell. Who?? If you're looking for a young pretender to take the Bond role in a few years time, you got the right film but the wrong person. Christian Bale is your man.
M Hazard, I agree with you when you say the first three films, OHMSS and Licence To Kill were the best as far as the purists (of which I am one) are concerned. But to say Tim Dalton was not a fine actor and lacked screen presence is just wrong. To date he is the only classically trained actor to play Bond, and at the time made the effort to study Fleming's books in order to perfect his character.
Carleton, yes, Bond started out on the page. Well done. But to say therefore he had "no look" suggests that you have never read any of those pages. Fleming described him on several occasions as looking like Hoagy Carmichael, a fact that, judging by his avatar, has not escaped Superado, who writes very well.
Bigzilcho, I was also very impressed with your posts. While I'll agree to differ with you on your opinion of Moore (I feel he outstayed his welcome), I agree holeheartedly with your views on Dalton who remains my favourite Bond.
Oh and Khan, you said you never heard anything about Roger Moore's mum. She used to live in Frinton-on-Sea in Essex. Will that do?
I simply need to know why he, of all the candidates, was the final choice. The James Bond franchise did not meet its end today but it was certainly wounded. I can only imagine the shock running through the minds of all the previous James Bond actors as they saw the headline. We miss you Peirce, Roger, Sean and at this point even George and Timothy.
Most of us had serious issues with DAD, so let's applaud Eon for the change. I had no issues with Brosnan and would have loved him to do one more, but that's in the past now. Let's also face the fact that whomever was to follow Brosnan had one hell of a job on his hands, I don't think any actor could deliver the box-office returns (in the role of Bond) that Brosnan has, so I don't think that can be used as a fair yardstick.
I'm hoping that Craig - along with a decent script - will deliver us a back-to-basics Bond film, more story less gadgets, more thriller less blockbuster.
I'm actually more concerned that Campbell isn't the right director for this type of film - I hope he proves me wrong.
Hurrah! Finally, positive comments from a "higher authority" poster of AJB! All those who's opinions seem to respected have posted nothing but cynicism all day. "Anti-climax" this and "Blonde Hair" that. I made the same point about DAD being hated here so that people should welcome the change. I just hope this changes, I don't like the way AJB is being clouded by so many of the respected members flaunting their negative reactions around the forum. Both CBN and MI6 have more of a balance than this.
Maybe they are figuring in the X millions of dollars they'll have to spend to sell the public on Craig as Bond?
A hard sell - I don't envy them that task or the $ amount it will cost and all at a huge risk if it doesn't work.
If in the UK, is there any similar provision to contract law?
Imagine if they see the reaction and then back off. Hmmm, is there hope yet or am I just dreaming of a better end to this nightmare?