Who's Eating Their Words?
General_Ourumov
United KingdomPosts: 861MI6 Agent
General_Ourumov wrote:Casino Royale? Fair choice
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.
The above is the post I made after hearing that Daniel Craig was to be the new James Bond (14/10/2005).
Keeping an open mind meant that, after having seen the film and very much enjoyed it, I didn't have to face people telling me "I told you so".
Is there anyone on AJB who was absolutely seething with anger at the thought of Craig playing 007, or anyone who was ecstatic at the news? Perhaps you can find your original responses to the news as I have -- have things changed now, having seen Casino Royale?
Comments
ALTHOUGH they should dye his hair (Dyed Another Day?) and let it grow a little so it can be styled... but he was very Connery-like.
Curious, I went out and bought a copy of "Layer Cake" from the local video store. I was floored. It's a great movie and Craig is great in it. After seeing it, I figured out which direction they wanted to take Bond. I couldn't wait.
Thought leaving out Q and Moneypenney was a bit odd, but reserved judgement for after I saw the finished product.
Martin Campbell? He did a great job with "Goldeneye".
Thought bringing back Dame Judi as M was a good idea. She's great in the role and that's fine with me. I'm not bothered by the continuity issues in the franchise. First, I'd have to buy the fact that after 45 years of movies, Bond was still only 38 years old. I decided to leave my brain at the door. Same with making CR. I thought it was high time they put the memory of that 1967 piece o' crap away for good.
Haggis was a great choice. Hell, the guy wins Oscars practically every year! Bringing in a script doctor was a good call. There's quite a few Bond scripts that could have used some cleaning up. And I do like the smoother pacing and snappier dialogue in CR.
Overall, the movie was even better than I expected, and I expected it to be good anyway. A job well done!
Dench was very good in the previous Bonds, but I felt it was wrong to use her in CR for continuity reasons. It still doesn't work if you think cronology, but she is such a perfect counterweight to Craig they havce to keep her now.
Campbell was the weak link to me, based on his "average" work so far. I wanted them to hire Davids Fincher, Mike Newell, Peter Weir or Martin Scorcese. Not all of them are Commonwealth, but they are acomplished directors who could make very good Bond-movies. I still think they should hire people like that, but I see the problem of using a too mindstrong and individualistic- minded director. But Campbell was the one I hade to say excuse me to. He was very much up to teh task!
In the end, I loved the film, and even my ingoing fears were proven groundless. However, I don't have any words to eat -- nor am I entitled to any "told ya so" attitude -- because I really never ventured an opinion pre-release.
With Campbell directing, I was nervous, not a GE fan either. But CR is pretty much the film I'd hoped it would be, and Craig does indeed make a great Bond.
Interesting that you were nervous about Martin Campbell, blue. To begin with, he was about the only positive that I could see in relation to Casino Royale. I could not see Daniel Craig as Bond (more so as a rookie), I saw him more as a Bond villain. I did not like the "half-arsed" idea of the re-boot with Judi Dench as M.
No Q, no Moneypenny, wasn't that bothered provided they were not missing permanently. No gadgets, ditto. Moving the gunbarrel, not happy about that at all. Paul Haggis, I was neutral. Didn't know much about him or his work.
Yes, I have had to eat some of my words, but I'm not complaining.
When the whole Craig debate was raging, there were other words--not about Craig, but more about others' POVs--I'd take back if I could. As a long-time member stated not too long ago, Bond belongs to us all. I think that tends to get lost around here, and I've had my mind-slip moments, sure.
I think a caveat I'd add to the Bond belongs to us all comment is, to varying degrees, and we'd all be wise to be mindful of that when posting. 2 cents.
Yes, the whole Craig debate was very intense at times, too intense. I admire your honesty in regards to taking back some of your your words. I am sure you are not the only one.
I also admire the way you stuck up for and defended Danny boy at a time when it appeared you were blowing against an avalanche. Kudos to you.
Indeed, Bond belongs to us all.
I agree. I really like Goldeneye, but not necessarily because of its directing. I just appreciated the story and characters. And since that was really Martin Campbell's only good film, I've never really seen him as a true 'director' who, when you can refer to him by name, has a filmmaking style that pops into your head. Now, he has become legitimate, as you say, and Casino Royale is his masterpiece.
Exceptionally well said. These were my thoughts and attitudes as well.
Being a Goldeneye fan I was also pleased when Martin Campbell was signed to direct.
I would never say 'I told you so' or expect anyone to eat their words though. As was said earlier. 'Bond belongs to us all'. With that in mind everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you don't like an aspect of the Bond series, past or present then that is fair play.
These so-called 'Bond-fans' over at CnB rile me slightly. Surely any true Bond fan would be excited at the prospect of a new Bond and casting reservations aside would watch it with an open mind, then pass judgement. The people over there are fanatical, bordering on lunacy. It is very disturbing.
I have great repect for people who weren't sure about Craig as Bond but waited to see him before knocking his performance.
A lesson to everyone. Complain about an actor AFTER you have seen the movie. Don't splash the water when you haven't even spent your money yet.
I did think Craig would win me over having seen him in Layer Cake, but I was surprised how much he'd aged since the press conference and as for Campbell, I stand by every critisism of him. Barely a scene goes by without some incongruity or plothole. There is a pretence at serious dialogue in this film, unlike DAD, but I thought it was either cackhanded or badly edited after completion...
Roger Moore 1927-2017