About Craig's face

[Agentsands77]

I question the mental state of anyone who sees this image and finds it un-Bond:

That is definitely among the best Craig pictures ever released (there are also some nice ones inside the magazine itself, as well).

 

[super_fan]

A new video is online which suggests Daniel Craig is not Bond material. It's posted on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH5OCoJD5jA

Craig may act aspects of Bond's personality but I think overall he's unsuited to the role. Call me a superficial, but I'd rather have a more handsome charming guy as Bond. I predict a one film Bond career for Mr Daniel Craig.

 

[Agentsands77]

Call me a superficial, but I'd rather have a more handsome charming guy as Bond.

Why is it whenever somebody says he's not as handsome, Craig is automatically ruled out as not charming either? Charming has little to do with looks - it's performance. I tend to think it will be there, but ultimately we can't judge that yet.

 

[Everyman]

A new video is online which suggests Daniel Craig is not Bond material. It's posted on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH5OCoJD5jA

Craig may act aspects of Bond's personality but I think overall he's unsuited to the role. Call me a superficial, but I'd rather have a more handsome charming guy as Bond. I predict a one film Bond career for Mr Daniel Craig.

That video proves nothing, it's just dumb, thick photo manip, and not very good ones at that. Any man could look ridiculous with his face on another body.

And would this man fit more your idea of Bond, physically? Does he have the face, the charm, the look for Bond?

http://www.edrants.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/zardoz.jpg

http://media.mth.net/cinecinemas_fr2/images/dossier/connery/images/zardoz.jpg

http://www.deluxenoise.com/images/zardoz05.jpg

Craig is an ACTOR. Actors can play different characters, and they can appear more attractive ina film and not so much in another. Minus the blond hair (and he is not that blond) his physique is relatively close to Fleming's original vision of Bond. And he is hardly unattractive.

 

[Two-Face]

A new video is online which suggests Daniel Craig is not Bond material. It's posted on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH5OCoJD5jA

Craig may act aspects of Bond's personality but I think overall he's unsuited to the role. Call me a superficial, but I'd rather have a more handsome charming guy as Bond. I predict a one film Bond career for Mr Daniel Craig.

It will be his second time as 007 since he signed do Bond 22.

 

[super_fan]

If Casino Royale flops then Craig won't make a second. The box office will determine Craig's fate, not his contract.

 

[Agentsands77]

If Casino Royale flops then Craig won't make a second. The box office will determine Craig's fate, not his contract.

Actually, I tend to think he'll make at least two films. EON and Sony will look damn stupid if they have to get rid of Craig after this whole shenanigan, so I think it's possible they'll stick to their guns stubbornly.

 

[super_fan]

If Casino Royale takes half of Die Another Day's gross - say around $250 million - there's no financial reason to keep Craig. Sony Pictures is not a charity, it's in the business to make profit.

I can't see Craig making a second if CR flops or does poorly. Of course it could be a hit but I don't think Craig will have broad appeal.

 

[Agentsands77]

If Casino Royale takes half of Die Another Day's gross - say around $250 million - there's no financial reason to keep Craig.

Oh, I think it's likely CASINO ROYALE will pull in at least $300 million. Bond has always been immensely strong overseas (even LICENCE TO KILL, which did dismally, ended up pulling in a decent sum because of overseas grosses). I think the worldwide gross will come in around $250 million.

CASINO ROYALE in the US is really the factor. The great thing about the time slot is that ROYALE has no competition - it's the only real action vehicle of the fall, and it's being released in the Thanksgiving market which always gives films a big boost financially.

Sony Pictures is not a charity, it's in the business to make profit.

But EON is the one with the control. Sony may be funding the operation, but EON has the rights and creative input. I'm not so sure EON will be willing to quickly drop Craig.

People forget that Roger Moore had a rough time establishing himself as 007, which he didn't successfully do until his third film. EON may very well insist on giving Craig a second shot (on the other hand, Sony may then refuse to fund another Craig venture and EON and Sony may then engage in a long debate that keeps another Bond film from being made for years).

Of course it could be a hit but I don't think Craig will have broad appeal.

Well, I think it's likely CASINO ROYALE will do just fine at the box office. Fine enough to warrant another film. The real test for Craig will probably come with his second film which will be released in an ultra-risky summer slot with heavy competition.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

"Tower" over him? I think not. And honestly, is the height difference noticeable? Not in any footage/photos I've seen from CASINO ROYALE.


Or, it's a more interesting twist. Just because Craig doesn't follow the mold of previous actors doesn't mean he's innapropriate, or a step down. It just means he's different.

Frankly, I like the change. We've had enough of the same that some changes can be made. Craig's rougher look is a nice twist, I think. And I do think it definitely fits with the basic look of Fleming's Bond. Take a look at this manip to illustrate my point. Leontheprofessional at MI6forums.com added a few of the FlemingBond characteristics (namely the scar, comma of hair) to Craig. It's 99% how I've always pictured Fleming's Bond.

Oh, come on now. Connery's face is very wrinkly, even in that photo.


True. But even Roger Moore got pretty light-haired depending on the film.

I see what you're saying, I just disagree. Connery's face was smoother, as was the eyes and nose. Craig looks like rough sandpaper, and his eyes are deep and hollow, almost sickly. He hasn't aged well in the last few years, and he's the kind of guy who will suddenly look 80 in no time.

He doesn't look anything like the drawing Fleming had done.

Again, that's my opinion. At least you were more respectful than that VileOne dude.

 

[Agentsands77]

IHe doesn't look anything like the drawing Fleming had done.

Well, Fleming's conception of his character was wildly inconsistent. He wanted a lot of odd choices for the role. And furthermore, it's often been noted that he based the character on himself, and Fleming (while very much a womanizer) was no attractive dude.

 

[MJZ]

What a bunch of schmucks.

What's Bond supposed to look like, you pencilnecks? Clive Owen I bet. Like he ain't a bit craggy in the face.

Or Henry Cavill, HA! He's so pretty I bet he has a *****.

 

[TheVileOne]

The people whining about Craig probably would've preferred metrosexual pretty boys like Orlando Bloom and Henry Cavill.

 

[johnsonuk]

The people whining about Craig probably would've preferred metrosexual pretty boys like Orlando Bloom and Henry Cavill.

it is not what he looks like in the pics that count(thankfully).it is what he does in the film,hopefully his appearence will be a non isssue.
but people are entitled to want a cerrtain look,if that puts them off seeing the film then that is a big issue for them.I believe many people will be put off unfortunatly.i realy hope i am wrong.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

it is not what he looks like in the pics that count(thankfully).it is what he does in the film,hopefully his appearence will be a non isssue.
but people are entitled to want a cerrtain look,if that puts them off seeing the film then that is a big issue for them.I believe many people will be put off unfortunatly.i realy hope i am wrong.

Well said. Yes, people can have opinions about his appearance.

And just because some of us do not like Craig's appearance, doesn't mean we prefer the pretty boys. That's a pretty thoughtless suggestion. I'd just prefer someone taller, darker, and more like Brosnan but younger.

 

[Agentsands77]

And just because some of us do not like Craig's appearance, doesn't mean we prefer the pretty boys. That's a pretty thoughtless suggestion. I'd just prefer someone taller, darker, and more like Brosnan but younger.

Well, for what it's worth, Brosnan *is* a pretty-boy.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Well, for what it's worth, Brosnan *is* a pretty-boy.

Not really. Pretty boy describes someone who looks like a boy, which Brosnan does not, as well as someone that you could put makeup on and they would resemble a girl, which also Brosnan does not. Brosnan was probably the most model-like handsome Bond there was (even though I can't say with accuracy since I'm straight), but he still had a pretty good rugged look.

 

[Agentsands77]

Brosnan was probably the most model-like handsome Bond there was (even though I can't say with accuracy since I'm straight), but he still had a pretty good rugged look.

Oh come on, you don't have to be gay to appraise the appearance of another man. Brosnan looked very model-like, as if he always belonged on the pages of GQ. He was perfectly manicured. That's what we all mean by pretty-boy.

There wasn't much rugged about him in appearance at all, IMO, and he certainly wasn't at all physically intimidating. Bond isn't a perfectly-manicured man, he's a rough, tough, and hardened secret agent that should exude an intense masculinity. Brosnan didn't nail that in appearance (though Connery most definitely did).

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

Oh come on, you don't have to be gay to appraise the appearance of another man. Brosnan looked very model-like, as if he always belonged on the pages of GQ. He was perfectly manicured. That's what we all mean by pretty-boy.

Read my post again. I didn't say you had to be gay, I just said its hard to fully and accurately judge how good someone may look if you're not attracted to their sex. And that's true with me. Don't try and read stuff into my post that isn't there. That's uncool.

Perfectly manicured? Lol. He was definitely suave looking in appearance, but he is nowhere near really being a pretty boy.

There wasn't much rugged about him in appearance at all, IMO, and he certainly wasn't at all physically intimidating. Bond isn't a perfectly-manicured man, he's a rough, tough, and hardened secret agent that should exude an intense masculinity. Brosnan didn't nail that in appearance (though Connery most definitely did).

Yes, he certainly did exude that masculinity. I think what your problem is that you're judging him by his movies, and not by him. His Bond movies were crap, all of them except Goldeneye. Had he gotten a few more solidly written, intelligent Bond movies down, instead of the cliched, watered down action crap we did get, people would accept him better. That's already one reason this new production has a strike against it; they not only denied Brosnan another chance, they treated him like crap and gave him a cold hard boot to the ass.

To me, he is the second best Bond after Connery. He had the good acting, the good looks, was tall, and could handle action (as the last fight in Goldeneye proved) perfectly fine.

You people like Craig because he's rugged. But that's the problem! He's too rugged. He's more rugged than handsome. He looks like he's been dragged across a couple of hundred miles of concrete, not like a secret agent that relies on wit, charm and intelligence to get through a lot of situations. This is supposed to be Bond's first outing but instead, we get this oldish looking dude who doesn't look like he could charm the breeches off of 75 year old hag.

 

[Agentsands77]

Perfectly manicured? Lol. He was definitely suave looking in appearance, but he is nowhere near really being a pretty boy.

Oh, I definitely think so. He's beyond suave and in a whole category of perfectly-manicured, businessman-like look. Bond isn't a man who's so concerned with his appearance even if he does generally take care of himself (at least Fleming's Bond wasn't, which is the Bond I love the most).

Yes, he certainly did exude that masculinity. I think what your problem is that you're judging him by his movies, and not by him.

I judge his Bond by the movies he did. There's no other way to judge his Bond - everything else is purely theoretical. And frankly, he didn't even do all that much with the relatively shabby material he was given.

That's already one reason this new production has a strike against it; they not only denied Brosnan another chance, they treated him like crap and gave him a cold hard boot to the ass.

Whatever. Brosnan's Bond carried a ton of baggage with him. Could they have done a different kind of film with his Bond in it? Sure, but they wouldn't have the clean slate they have without him.

And honestly, the producers have every right to let Brosnan go if they feel like it. They didn't owe him anything - his contract was up and they chose not to renew. They could have treated him better, to be sure, but letting him go was hardly an immoral move on their part.

To me, he is the second best Bond after Connery. He had the good acting, the good looks, was tall, and could handle action (as the last fight in Goldeneye proved) perfectly fine.

If his movies and the Bond characterizations he was forced to portray weren't great, how can he be the second best Bond ever? Just because there was untapped potential?

Personally, of the attributes you mention, I find his acting okay. I don't think he always did the best with the material he was given even, and while he was often pretty good, sometimes he was also outright awful (I think THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH may contain the worst performance of Brosnan's career). If anything, it never felt like I was really looking at James Bond - I was looking at Pierce Brosnan pretend to be Bond (even Brosnan said he never felt comfortable in the role, and I think it shows).

I do wish Brosnan had been given better material because he was honestly capable of so much more, but even so, I never particularly wanted him for the role. I always thought he was too good-looking and too much of a bean-pole to boot. He also lacked the intense tough-guy hypermasculinity and presence that I think is crucial to the character. I honestly wish Sean Bean had been given the part in 1995, not Pierce Brosnan.

He looks like he's been dragged across a couple of hundred miles of concrete, not like a secret agent that relies on wit, charm and intelligence to get through a lot of situations.

Explain to me why he looks as if he lacks wit, charm, and intelligence, since those are characteristics that are tied to personality, not appearance. And frankly, I think Craig is more than capable of displaying all of the above, and has done so in clips that we've seen.

He looks like he's worked his way up through the ranks and is a tough character and killer - a guy who boxed in college (as Fleming's Bond did), served long in the naval forces and secret service, and is a natural killer. Bond is a hardened man who should have a hardened look.

This is supposed to be Bond's first outing but instead, we get this oldish looking dude who doesn't look like he could charm the breeches off of 75 year old hag.

I know numerous women who find him quite sexy (one magazine even named him the 8th sexiest man in the world, placing him far above Brosnan), so honestly, I think you're off the mark a bit.

 

[johnsonuk]

well part of the appeal of james bond to me is the cool suave guy.Brosnan was great at that and i loved his james bond,no one will ever convince me he was a bad bond,for me he is one of if not the best bonds.But having said that his best bond performance came in a non bond film if that makes any sense.Watch THE FOURTH PROTOCOL,exellent film.
ut it is like i said previousely,seeing still picks a a false way of judging him(craig).my advice is watch the film and then judge him.
What is evident with the casting of craig is that they seem to have gone back to the books but if they try and make craig do a typical bond film then his casting is rediculouse.

 

[chaseter]

A new video is online which suggests Daniel Craig is not Bond material. It's posted on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH5OCoJD5jA

Craig may act aspects of Bond's personality but I think overall he's unsuited to the role. Call me a superficial, but I'd rather have a more handsome charming guy as Bond. I predict a one film Bond career for Mr Daniel Craig.

Too late there...they are fixing to start the next Bond film and Craig is signed on...

 

[TheVileOne]

It didn't make sense to use Brosnan for Casino Royale.

Plus the last Bond movie was crap. It was time to start over again.

 

[super_fan]

You people like Craig because he's rugged. But that's the problem! He's too rugged. He's more rugged than handsome. He looks like he's been dragged across a couple of hundred miles of concrete, not like a secret agent that relies on wit, charm and intelligence to get through a lot of situations. This is supposed to be Bond's first outing but instead, we get this oldish looking dude who doesn't look like he could charm the breeches off of 75 year old hag.

I agree 100 percent. I regard Craig as an abysmal choice to play the iconic James Bond. All the people that say Bond isn't meant to be coventionally handsome are WRONG. Every representation of Bond - books, posters, comic strips, newspaper comic strips, movies etc shows a conventional or classically handsome man as Bond. Craig looks nothing like any version of Bond - he's not Fleming's Bond, he's not Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman's Bond - he's Barbara Broccoli's Bond. She chose him.

The other major problem with Craig is his potential lack of charm - and I mean Bond type charm. I've seen some clips of his Bond delivery (the Casino Royale site has some clips) and he seems charmless, lacking the suave confidence we identity with the role. I think Craig is going to be a less charming version of Timothy Dalton's Bond - and I do like Dalton's Bond but he played the part with less charm and more intensity. Sadly, if you mix Craig's non-Bond look with his lack of suave confidence and charm you're not getting Bond - you're getting a generic action hero who just happens to happens to be called 'James Bond'. But that's not the real thing.

If fans and movie goers expect to see James Bond in Casino Royale I'm 100 percent convinced they'll be sorely disappointed. This is, at best, a completely new version of Bond - more ordinary than aspirational - more Bourne than Bond. Whether or not people will like this Bond is hard to say. That's the risk Eon and Sony Pictures have taken to keep the franchise fresh. Personally speaking, I feel it's a big mistake and won't work, but we'll find out in November.

 

[James"007"Bond]

Fools.

CR is looking good for various reasons. Good actors, good director and most importantly a good script. We've seen pics and some footage, I dont see any room for failure. I'm glad Craig is being hated on because he's seriously going to b1tch slap a lot of people with his performance and either way, the nay-sayers will be paiying to see the movie regardless.

Craig IS Bond, people need and have to accept it because its FACT.