About Craig's face

[Furious Styles]

Your sig's misquoted, bud-o. It's APPLES.

You mean right after Fry doesn't get the girl, and The Professor's monkey does?

 

[super_fan]

New Bond actor Daniel Craig denies he lost any teeth during the filming of Casino Royale:

t:

 

[johnsonuk]

New Bond actor Daniel Craig denies he lost any teeth during the filming of Casino Royale:

t:

t: t: t: t:

 

[johnsonuk]

$72 million is about half of what Die Another Day costs.

and it is $22m more than goldeneye which went on to earn, Worldwide: $348,895,621
i think $250m WW is good box office,nothing special but good.

 

[SatEL]

OK, what hell is the damage? People actually complaining about Craig's face. So I ask why?

Ok, so the guy's got a bit of a weathered and beaten down face. He's got some crags and some wrinkes. But so what? He's rugged. And Bond should be rugged.

Sean Connery was also rugged. He wasn't a fresh-faced, metrosexual pretty-boy. He was a rugged and cold bastard.

But people complaining about Craig's face is just sort of how superficial the complaining about him has become. And how much crap it is. It reminds me of the whiney fanboy kids complaining about the looks of Kirsten Dunst and Bryce Dallas Howard for Spider-man.




I guess Craig isn't sexy enough for some moronic fanboys.

I think some people would have prefered Orlando Bloom.

 

[chaseter]

^Orlando Bloom or any man on a Abercrombie bag had better never be Bond.

 

[terry78]

Fanboy geeks are all secretly in the closet. It's pretty much a well known fact. This constant interest in the attractive factor of their favorite franchise characters is just a little too on the nose.

 

[xwolverine2]

Fanboy geeks are all secretly in the closet. It's pretty much a well known fact. This constant interest in the attractive factor of their favorite franchise characters is just a little too on the nose.

Magneto is sexy!

 

[LastSunrise1981]

I'm not concerned about Craig at all. If fanboys are complaining about his handsome good looks, then maybe they have some unresolved issues that need to be addressed.

However, in my opinion, I really don't see the problem. None of the Bonds were really all that good looking to begin with. What made Bond appealing was his charm and his calmness towards dangerous situations.

I liked the idea of a rugged Bond. So in hindsight it's only fair to give Craig a chance to see what he can do with this particular role.

If anything Bond reminds me more of Agent 47 than anything else, and when you think about it, Agent 47 is very much like Bond in his approach to his job.

 

[kit1982]

WTF? People don't share your views and they are "moronic" and closet homosexuals? I'm sorry but doesn't anyone else see anything wrong with this? Just because they don't like the way he looks has nothing to do with their sexuality, for example alot of people include myself had reservations about Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne look, nothing to do with sexuality everything to do that he didn't fit their image of the millionaire playboy samething applies to alot who have a problem with Craig, it doesn't fit their opinion (Which remember they are entitled to).

 

[LastSunrise1981]

WTF? People don't share your views and they are "moronic" and closet homosexuals? I'm sorry but doesn't anyone else see anything wrong with this? Just because they don't like the way he looks has nothing to do with their sexuality, for example alot of people include myself had reservations about Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne look, nothing to do with sexuality everything to do that he didn't fit their image of the millionaire playboy samething applies to alot who have a problem with Craig, it doesn't fit their opinion (Which remember they are entitled to).

Because if their complaints are "he's not sexy or handsome enough" then they have some unresolved issues.

It's funny how you see and read what you want to read, but you have a lot of complainers who come around and say, "he's not sexy enough", "his hair isn't brown", and "he's not handsome at all."

Who cares about his look? It'd be different if they casted Ashton Kutcher for the role of James Bond or Sean William Scott.

 

[Thot]

Here's the bottom line;
Casino Royale will tank and vindicate those of us who feel the suits at EON are smoking crack, OR it will succeed and vindicate Craig fans and EON's decision to "re-invent" and "re-boot" Bond. November will settle all arguments. My hope is that CR will indeed fail and that the franchise will return to it's roots and give us back the traditional James Bond.

 

[Furious Styles]

So people who don't like Craig becuase of his "look" are gay?

LOL

Thot, well spoken my friend, well spoken

 

[Agentsands77]

Here's the bottom line;
Casino Royale will tank and vindicate those of us who feel the suits at EON are smoking crack, OR it will succeed and vindicate Craig fans and EON's decision to "re-invent" and "re-boot" Bond.

How so? I don't give a damn whether CASINO ROYALE makes money - I just care if I like it.

November will settle all arguments.

No it won't. People are still going to be debating about this for a long time - it will settle whether or not it was financially viable (but I still think people will be debating that for days and days and days), but box office has little to say on the actual merits of the film. It's likely going to be an oft-debated, controversial franchise films for the remainder of its days.

My hope is that CR will indeed fail and that the franchise will return to it's roots and give us back the traditional James Bond.

I think it's far more likely that if CASINO ROYALE seriously tanks, we won't have another Bond film for at least a decade.

 

[LastSunrise1981]

Here's the bottom line;
Casino Royale will tank and vindicate those of us who feel the suits at EON are smoking crack, OR it will succeed and vindicate Craig fans and EON's decision to "re-invent" and "re-boot" Bond. November will settle all arguments. My hope is that CR will indeed fail and that the franchise will return to it's roots and give us back the traditional James Bond.

Trust me, Casino Royale will not tank at all. I think Casino Royale is a return to the roots of James Bond.

If I'm not mistaken Casino Royale was a bit darker compared to the other works featuring Bond. Personally I can't wait to see what they did with it.

 

[James"007"Bond]

My hope is that CR will indeed fail and that the franchise will return to it's roots and give us back the traditional James Bond.

CR is attributed with ingredients that make an excellent formula, we just need to see it all in its entirety but you hope it fails so we can go back to the likes of DAD? You fool. CR has everything that allows it to revert back to what we were getting in the 60s.

 

[xwolverine2]

i cant believe theres fools that WANT a movie to bomb......

thats just ****ing stupid in every way

 

[terry78]

^They wanted X-Men and Fantastic Four to bomb, but that was mostly due to them not liking the people involved. It's all pretty petty if you ask me.

 

[Furious Styles]

I think it's far more likely that if CASINO ROYALE seriously tanks, we won't have another Bond film for at least a decade.

In 1995, it wasn't known whether or not James Bond was still viable.

In 2006, we now know that the James Bond name is indeed viable. However if CR fails, it will simply be because Craig wasn't what the majority of people wanted. Not because 'James Bond' is out of touch with the times.

And even if it fails, EON was more than ready to go into production of 'Property Of A Lady' when it was more than apparent that LTK was not doing so well.

 

[Brian Braddock]

CR is attributed with ingredients that make an excellent formula, we just need to see it all in its entirety but you hope it fails so we can go back to the likes of DAD? You fool. CR has everything that allows it to revert back to what we were getting in the 60s.

^^^^^Agree entirely.

Great post.

CR harkens back to a time when a new Bond film actually meant something. You knew you were going to see something truly fresh, exciting and original.

Bond had gotten stale and formulaic - DAD just emphasised that.

 

[Agentsands77]

In 1995, it wasn't known whether or not James Bond was still viable.

In 2006, we now know that the James Bond name is indeed viable. However if CR fails, it will simply be because Craig wasn't what the majority of people wanted. Not because 'James Bond' is out of touch with the times.

And even if it fails, EON was more than ready to go into production of 'Property Of A Lady' when it was more than apparent that LTK was not doing so well.

It's not an issue of viability. I forsee an intense power struggle between Sony and EON and internal studio warring that effectively paralyzes any move forward on a Bond film.

 

[Furious Styles]

If CommanderBond.net was indeed correct and SONY had pushed EON to bring back Brosnan (which EON refused, instead casting Craig) and CR does indeed "financially fail" then a certain power struggle will occur. However, business sense will prevail, as usual...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...d21.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/21/ixuknews.html

An interesting article about Dalton and letters written to Fleming considering future Bond films starring Dalton.

 

[Agentsands77]

However, business sense will prevail, as usual...

Eventually, sure, but not after a good while, I think.

 

[Furious Styles]

I may not like Craig or EON very much these days, however I think (as Bond fans) it is in our best interest to have CR succeed. We don't need to go through a decade or so of Bondless cinema.

 

[Agentsands77]

I may not like Craig or EON very much these days, however I think (as Bond fans) it is in our best interest to have CR succeed. We don't need to go through a decade or so of Bondless cinema.

Yeah, I tend to agree. I know a lot of people are unhappy with CASINO ROYALE, but I don't think that wishing for its failure will get them the Bond they want to see any sooner.

Craig likely won't be around for that long anyhow (probably until about 2012 at the latest, if not earlier than that). And after he's gone, I think there'd be a natural return to the more crowd-pleasing style of Bond film.