Daniel Craig confirmed as new James Bond

[Hunter Rider]

really? i though that campbell himself said they will be back?

Apparently in the press conference Wilson said they wont be

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

Apparently in the press conference Wilson said they wont be

Damn it..


It gets ****ing worse!



excuse me i have something in my eye.

 

[regwec]

Craig is the best casting choice since Connery.

Although it is true that he doesn't resemble what people have come to expect from a James Bond, that is in fact what makes him so right. Roger Moore, George Lazenby, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan have all been the fruits of MGM's attempts to find someone a bit like Sean Connery. Or at least someone with dark hair. That's about the only thing that they have in common with each other.

Daniel Craig has the potential to be to Bond what Bale has been to Batman. He fits the Bond of literature better. Craig looks like a fighter. He looks like someone who has had a career in the military before joining the secret service- as Bond should. I really hope that the producers are serious about returning Bond to his cold, sadistic roots. I hope they finally give him the 3" scar on his cheek he was always supposed to have.

Sure, I want them to keep the class and sophistication (though I would like to point out that the James Bond of the novels drinks Krug champagne as often as vulgar Vodka Martinis), and maybe I would even prefer them to stick a little die in Craig's hair. But the potential here to rejuvinate the franchise from a campy-sci fi-sex-farce and back into a gritty, character driven spy thriller is huge.

See what I mean?

 

[Carmine Falcone]

See what I mean?

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Regardless of what some have said about Craig being closer to the Bond of the book, that's not really important to the Bond producers. Bond movies have never been much like the books. When Timothy Dalton tried to play the Bond of the books, it didn't hold as much appeal to the general public as previous 007s.

Bond movies are a formula, and after forty years, despite what Martin Campbell says, it's not going to change very drastically. It's not like Die Another Day, bad as it was, flopped - quite the opposite, it was a huge blockbuster. Just like the last three Bond movies.

Bond needs to be revamped for every generation, that's how it survives, but it really hasn't changed much. Watch Dr No (1962) and Die Another Day (2002) and there isn't a lot of difference except in movie technology. The producers hit on the perfect formula with Goldfinger (1964). They fiddled with it in On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) and Licence to Kill (1989), but audience reactions soon bought them back to the standard.

I remember both Lee Tamahori and Michael Apted (directors of Die Another Day and The World is Not Enough) saying how they intended to change the series somewhat, update it, and make Bond more human and/or darker. Then they both mentioned in interviews afterwards that, although they had tried to add a fresh approach to Bond, 'the machine kicks in', the formula, and you just have another Bond film again.

That's the way it works. I recall movie critics calling GoldenEye (1995) a Bond for the 90's. But it's very similar, of course, to the previous Bond film, Licence to Kill (1989). I think the only real difference in Bond films is how serious they are. Diamonds are Forever (1971) is almost camp comedy. For Your Eyes Only (1981) is a pretty sober, more realistic and shows an aging Bond. Licence to Kill is considered the darkest of the series, and was the least succesful at the US box office.

The appeal of Bond is seeing how the film makers can play around with the established elements - not seeing new elements.

As for Daniel Craig, his acting ability isn't as important as his screen charisma. Bond isn't really about acting, it's about a naturally cool actor coasting on his screen prescence. Bond is a cypher as much as a man, a stepping stone for the audience to live out their onscreen fantasy. That's why we never learn very much about him. We don't want to and we don't need to.

Connery was effortless, Roger Moore was just being himself, Brosnan simply put on a 'more English' accent. Dalton attempted to act the role. In every scene he's there acting, Royal Shakespeare style, often when he doesn't need to. Dalton is a quite dashing actor, and if you watch Flash Gordon and The Rocketeer you'll realise his potential as 007 wasn't quite reached.

What Craig and director Martin Campbell need to remember is to chill out. Be cool. Be smooth. Don't make 007 too realistic. Obviously there will be drama and danger involved. But Bond doesn't panic....he adjusts his cufflinks, he makes a witticism, and he escapes at the last second. That's exactly how audiences like him, and we wouldn't want him any other way.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Damn it..


It gets ****ing worse!



excuse me i have something in my eye.

sorry it's Q and Moneypenny that arent gonna be in it

http://www.empireonline.co.uk/news/story.asp?NID=17236

Blonde on Bond
All the news from the Bond press show

Trust Bond to make a big entrance. Leaping out of a plane might have been a bit much to expect from his first day on the job, but gliding coolly up the Thames to the HMS President to make his bow as the new Bond, Daniel Craig looked every inch 007.

He was joined for his unveiling by producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli and director Martin Campbell (Goldeneye). For a man who will soon be one of the most recognisable faces in the world, Craig was surprisingly reticent, shying away from most questions (may have had something to do with the irritating tabloid hack who opened the press conference with a question about Kate Moss and Sienna Miller – thanks for that) and gave little away about what he’ll be bringing to the role of 6th Bond. But, thankfully there was a great deal revealed by the rest of the panel.

Here’s what we learnt:

- Craig is ****ting himself: “It hasn’t sunken in yet. It’s a responsibility, but it’s also a huge adventure so I want to get as much out of it as I can…It’s a huge challenge and life is about challenges. It’s one of the big ones as an actor. He’s an iconic figure in movie history and these things don’t come along very often”.

- Craig was the only actor offered the role, which he was officially given on Monday, and only signed on after reading the script, which has been written by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, with a dialogue polish by Paul Haggis (Million Dollar Baby, Crash).

- Casino Royale is going to be a more adult prospect than the previous films. “It’s definitely a much darker Bond,” said Campbell. “but that doesn’t mean it won’t have its sense of humour. More character, less gadgets. If you think about where Bond is now - his attitude to women, his killer instinct – to arrive at that point I think you have to have gone through a fairly tough time to arrive at that. And that’s what Casino Royale is about”. It will remain 12A though.

- Many old favourites won’t appear. “We’re planning on bringing M back,” said Wilson. “but as the script stands neither Q nor Moneypenny appear”.

- We’ll be finding out a lot more about the origins of many a Bond symbol. “We’ll learn the ingredients of his martini mix – you should try it, it’ll kill you,” says Campbell. “and a lot of the embryonic Bond things: how he gets the Aston Martin, how he mixes his martini”.

- There are no Bond girls decided yet. “We haven’t really focused on anyone,” said Wilson. “I think it’s an open casting. Added Campbell: “It’s a terrific part. It’s probably the best Bond girl part there’s been. It’s Vespa Lynd, who’s in the book…We’re going to get a terrific actress and she has to look beautiful. She has a very important role in the piece and she also spends a lot of time with Bond. When we decide who it’s going to be, she’ll have to have all those attributes”. For the record, Craig’s favourite Bond girl is Diana Rigg in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

- Craig will be the first Blonde Bond. He’s not dying his hair.

- The budget is north of $100million

- Craig won’t say how many films he’s signed on for but says they “are in agreement”. The next is, however, already being written by Casino Royale’s writers, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade.

- The film will shoot at Pinewood Studios and in Prague, The Bahamas and Italy. Filming is due to start in January with a worldwide release date set for November 17, 2006.

- Tabloid journalists are intensely irritating. If you read tomorrow that Page 3 girl Keeley is up for the role of the Bond girl, it’s a big fat lie.

 

[regwec]

If you read tomorrow that Page 3 girl Keeley is up for the role of the Bond girl, it’s a big fat lie.

Keeley kicks arse.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

DYE YOUR BLOODY HAIR

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

In that picture he looks the part...

I guess i will have to take the superman route and wait for a trailer.

and i think edward woodwood would make a good new M.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/casinoroyale/site/


check that out.

 

[Everyman]

Regardless of what some have said about Craig being closer to the Bond of the book, that's not really important to the Bond producers. Bond movies have never been much like the books. When Timothy Dalton tried to play the Bond of the books, it didn't hold as much appeal to the general public as previous 007s.

Bond movies are a formula, and after forty years, despite what Martin Campbell says, it's not going to change very drastically. It's not like Die Another Day, bad as it was, flopped - quite the opposite, it was a huge blockbuster. Just like the last three Bond movies.

Bond needs to be revamped for every generation, that's how it survives, but it really hasn't changed much. Watch Dr No (1962) and Die Another Day (2002) and there isn't a lot of difference except in movie technology. The producers hit on the perfect formula with Goldfinger (1964). They fiddled with it in On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) and Licence to Kill (1989), but audience reactions soon bought them back to the standard.

I remember both Lee Tamahori and Michael Apted (directors of Die Another Day and The World is Not Enough) saying how they intended to change the series somewhat, update it, and make Bond more human and/or darker. Then they both mentioned in interviews afterwards that, although they had tried to add a fresh approach to Bond, 'the machine kicks in', the formula, and you just have another Bond film again.

That's the way it works. I recall movie critics calling GoldenEye (1995) a Bond for the 90's. But it's very similar, of course, to the previous Bond film, Licence to Kill (1989). I think the only real difference in Bond films is how serious they are. Diamonds are Forever (1971) is almost camp comedy. For Your Eyes Only (1981) is a pretty sober, more realistic and shows an aging Bond. Licence to Kill is considered the darkest of the series, and was the least succesful at the US box office.

The appeal of Bond is seeing how the film makers can play around with the established elements - not seeing new elements.

As for Daniel Craig, his acting ability isn't as important as his screen charisma. Bond isn't really about acting, it's about a naturally cool actor coasting on his screen prescence. Bond is a cypher as much as a man, a stepping stone for the audience to live out their onscreen fantasy. That's why we never learn very much about him. We don't want to and we don't need to.

Connery was effortless, Roger Moore was just being himself, Brosnan simply put on a 'more English' accent. Dalton attempted to act the role. In every scene he's there acting, Royal Shakespeare style, often when he doesn't need to. Dalton is a quite dashing actor, and if you watch Flash Gordon and The Rocketeer you'll realise his potential as 007 wasn't quite reached.

What Craig and director Martin Campbell need to remember is to chill out. Be cool. Be smooth. Don't make 007 too realistic. Obviously there will be drama and danger involved. But Bond doesn't panic....he adjusts his cufflinks, he makes a witticism, and he escapes at the last second. That's exactly how audiences like him, and we wouldn't want him any other way.

What more to say? I agree totally.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

What more to say? I agree totally.

Great minds....

 

[Two-Face]

DYE YOUR BLOODY HAIR

He has to do that, I laugh if he sticks with blonde hair.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

He has to do that, I laugh if he sticks with blonde hair.

start laughing.

 

[Two-Face]

start laughing.

I will do that when I see CR and he says "Bond James Bond" with blonde then I laugh.

 

[블라스]

Craig is the best casting choice since Connery.

Although it is true that he doesn't resemble what people have come to expect from a James Bond, that is in fact what makes him so right. Roger Moore, George Lazenby, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan have all been the fruits of MGM's attempts to find someone a bit like Sean Connery. Or at least someone with dark hair. That's about the only thing that they have in common with each other.

Daniel Craig has the potential to be to Bond what Bale has been to Batman. He fits the Bond of literature better. Craig looks like a fighter. He looks like someone who has had a career in the military before joining the secret service- as Bond should. I really hope that the producers are serious about returning Bond to his cold, sadistic roots. I hope they finally give him the 3" scar on his cheek he was always supposed to have.

Sure, I want them to keep the class and sophistication (though I would like to point out that the James Bond of the novels drinks Krug champagne as often as vulgar Vodka Martinis), and maybe I would even prefer them to stick a little die in Craig's hair. But the potential here to rejuvinate the franchise from a campy-sci fi-sex-farce and back into a gritty, character driven spy thriller is huge.

Yeah, I like you already
I agree 100%.

 

[Furious Styles]

This guy looks like someone who would pump my gas at the cornerstore. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The series always finds itself in need of a little tweak, I don't see the need for a giant overhaul, considering DAD was a blockbuster hit.

Everytime Craig moves they are going to need to play the James Bond theme because there is no way I'm going to buy him as secret agent 007. Nothing to do now but wait and see how good the film is.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

This guy looks like someone who would pump my gas at the cornerstore.

I bet you typed that carefully.

 

[Furious Styles]

Not carefully enough it seems...

 

[Retroman]

I hear good things about Craig so i'm confident he'll do well in the role. I need to get 'Layer Cake' and read Casino Royale pronto. I'm glad all the speculation is finally over.

P.S: Excellent post Kevin Roegele!

 

[Retroman]

Anyone read Moriarity's post in the AICN talkback? I won't repost it here but it's tasteless comment in my opnion.

http://www.aintitcool.com/tb_display.cgi?id=21552#1005185

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I hear good things about Craig so i'm confident he'll do well in the role. I need to get 'Layer Cake' and read Casino Royale pronto. I'm glad all the speculation is finally over.

P.S: Excellent post Kevin Roegele!

Thanks buddy!

 

[Carmine Falcone]

I need to get 'Layer Cake' and read Casino Royale pronto.

Layer Cake comes to the video library 18 october. And yes read Casino Royale, it's excellent. Not much action though but it would make a great thriller.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Anyone read Moriarity's post in the AICN talkback? I won't repost it here but it's tasteless comment in my opnion.

http://www.aintitcool.com/tb_display.cgi?id=21552#1005185

Yeah i read that this morning the lepor stuff was uncalled for and their talkback is full of ignorant morons,im not happy at this casting but the commnets about "no one cares about Bond he has no audience" when the last movie made more than both Bourne movies are so idiotic

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Anyone read Moriarity's post in the AICN talkback? I won't repost it here but it's tasteless comment in my opnion.

http://www.aintitcool.com/tb_display.cgi?id=21552#1005185

Everything on AICN is tasteless. I feel like washing my hands after reading that site.