Daniel Craig confirmed as new James Bond

[Tojo]

Why morons?? everyone has a opinion I don't think he's not a Bond material am I a moron too? Least they chose someone who has a acting abitily.

No, but read the papers and you will see why their opinion doesn't count. Tabloid writers are reactionary idiots who think they can do everyones elses job better than they can. That's why they're morons.

 

[spider-jide]

This eases my mind a little.

Here's hoping they stick to the original theme tune and not butcher it with a crappy techno/pop remix.

 

[Hunter Rider]

No, but read the papers and you will see why their opinion doesn't count. Tabloid writers are reactionary idiots who think they can do everyones elses job better than they can. That's why they're morons.

No they are just ppl like you or I that have an opinion,their's is as valid as ours and he isnt impressing them so far,maybe that will change onscreen

 

[regwec]

he isnt impressing them so far,maybe that will change onscreen

It shouldn't even be a matter of bloody debate before he's been on screen. Imagine if you had a burst pipe at your home, and you called a plumber to fix it, only to announce that "he isn't impressing me yet" before he had even arrived. It's ridiculous.

And Tojo is right: the tabloids sell by appealing to the absolute lowest common denominator. Their readership are the intellectual amoebas of Europe, who want to buy a newspaper that tells them what they think already, in nice, easy language they can understand. But the worst part of it is that tabloids style themselves as the formers and leaders of public opinion, meaning that their half-baked, narrow minded and prejudiced "opinions" are gobbled up by the great and the good because they think that rags like The Sun and The Mirror represent "ordinary people", whoever the hell they're supposed to be.

 

[Hunter Rider]

It shouldn't even be a matter of bloody debate before he's been on screen. Imagine if you had a burst pipe at your home, and you called a plumber to fix it, only to announce that "he isn't impressing me yet" before he had even arrived. It's ridiculous.

And Tojo is right: the tabloids sell by appealing to the absolute lowest common denominator. Their readership are the intellectual amoebas of Europe, who want to buy a newspaper that tells them what they think already, in nice, easy language they can understand. But the worst part of it is that tabloids style themselves as the formers and leaders of public opinion, meaning that their half-baked, narrow minded and prejudiced "opinions" are gobbled up by the great and the good because they think that rags like The Sun and The Mirror represent "ordinary people", whoever the hell they're supposed to be.

Look some ppl look at him and see a bland and unattractive guy and thats not how they see Bond,now everyone keep pointing to the books but the films are a 40 year legacy as well and Craig is very left field as a choice so ppl are split on him,they never once said he couldn't do the job they said in all the articles if you bothered to read them that he is a fine actor and may pull it off but his first impression which is important was not inspiring

 

[Van Petrol]

I chose Batman at first, but in retrospect he really should be Bond. He's too good an actor to be tied down to either franchise though. He'd be awesome. Just think about Bale as 007 for a second. It's a crime we won't get to see that now.

I agree. The thought of Bale as 007 still excites me, too bad we most likely will never see it.

 

[BK]

Here's something I got from another board:

Here's Fleming's original conception of Bond, as depicted by a commisioned artist whose name escapes me:

For a verbal description, here are a few passages from From Russia With Love, wherein a Russian general is examining Bond's KGB file:

It was a dark, clean-cut face, with a three inch scar showing whitely down the sunburned skin of the right cheek. The eyes were wide and level under straight, rather long black brows. The hair was black, parted on the left, and carelessly brushed so that a thick black comma fell down over the right eyebrow. The longish straight nose ran down to a short upper lip below which was a wide and finely drawn but cruel mouth. The line of the jaw was straight and firm...General G held the photograph out at arm's length. Decision, authority, ruthlesness--these qualities he could see. 'He looks like a nasty customer.' he said grimly. 'His story confirms it. I will read out some extracts'....
'First name: JAMES. Height: 183 centimetres, weight: 76 kilograms; slim build; eyes: blue; hair: black; scar down right cheek and on left shoulder...all-round athlete; expert pistol shot, boxer, knife-thrower; does not use disguises. Languages: French and German. Smokes heavily (NB: special cigarettes with three goldbands); vices: drink, but not to excess, and women.'

That description sure as hell sounds like Craig. I'm pleased with this choice.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

It's a common thing with Bond films, they get as sci-fi and unrealistic as possible, then they get really down-to-earth again. You Only Live Twice was just as ridiculous as Die Another Day (but executed in a far superior manner). That was followed by On Her Majesty's Secret Service, in which Bond gets married. Moonraker, considered the most over-the-top in the series, in which Bond goes into space, was followed by the sober thrills of For Your Eyes Only. Tomorrow Never Dies was criticised heavily for having too much action and not enough characterisation, so The World is Not Enough has some of the best relationships of the series (Sophie Marceau and Robert Carlyle as Elektra and Renard) - and the worst action. Then we have Die Another Day, which seems like a comicbook adaption. Invisible cars, a satellite using the light of the sun as a huge destructive beam, Halle Berry as an American spy called Jinx, and RoboCop suits.....it's no surprise that EON want to make some changes. They're doing it constantly.

Casino Royale, how ever it turns out, can only be a step up from where the Bond series was.

 

[Tojo]

BK, which board did u get that from.


Anyway, Craig has that grim look to him. But his eyes are fantastic.

 

[Hunter Rider]

BK, which board did u get that from.


Anyway, Craig has that grim look to him. But his eyes are fantastic.

He certainly has an ice cold killler look in those baby blues,Im still unsure but i think we need to wait no for a trailer before we say yay or nay on the guy

 

[Furious Styles]

Well I guess it all depends on what you consider to be the quintessential Bond film. A more, humanised characterization of James Bond like we've seen in OHMSS or LTK or the atypical Bond movie with gadgets, beautiful women, and one liners and so on like TND.

Alot of the films have given us both, disproportioned sometimes but I think it's hard to say what I want from this movie. I know some people who want a "grittier" Bond but can't stand Timothy Dalton and consider him the worst Bond ever. Some hate the Brosnan films but consider him one of the better Bonds. I'm done with my complaining of Craig so I'm just going to wait and see what they give us.

This happens with Star Trek too, for every Wrath of Khan, we get The Final Frontier. When a franchise of any sort spans so many years, it usually changes here and there, frome one extreme to the other before settling back into the middle.

 

[Tojo]

The greatest thing about Bond is also the worst thing. The past 20 Bond films are so completley diverse that it breeds totally different types of fan. And these fans all have different ideas fixed firmly in they minds what Janmes Bond is. So no-one can ever win.

If Clive Owen was cast i'd be crying like a little baby all over the internet too. Ppl say Craig looks working class, but Owen looks just as working class. Anyhow....

 

[Tojo]

He certainly has an ice cold killler look in those baby blues,Im still unsure but i think we need to wait no for a trailer before we say yay or nay on the guy

Yah i agree.

 

[BK]

BK, which board did u get that from.

I don't remember, I was browsing around different forums.

He certainly has an ice cold killler look in those baby blues,Im still unsure but i think we need to wait no for a trailer before we say yay or nay on the guy

That's a surprise considering the amount of hate I sensed in you in regards to Craig.

 

[Carter]

I think he's got great potential.

 

[Hunter Rider]

That's a surprise considering the amount of hate I sensed in you in regards to Craig.

Just being real,from what i saw of him prior to yesterday i didn't see any Bond in him and am still not sure but the fact is that pic of him that was released looks pretty good and so i admitted it and now will just remain cautious and hope he turns out for the best

 

[BK]

It takes a man to be able to admit something.

 

[Everyman]

It's a common thing with Bond films, they get as sci-fi and unrealistic as possible, then they get really down-to-earth again. You Only Live Twice was just as ridiculous as Die Another Day (but executed in a far superior manner). That was followed by On Her Majesty's Secret Service, in which Bond gets married. Moonraker, considered the most over-the-top in the series, in which Bond goes into space, was followed by the sober thrills of For Your Eyes Only. Tomorrow Never Dies was criticised heavily for having too much action and not enough characterisation, so The World is Not Enough has some of the best relationships of the series (Sophie Marceau and Robert Carlyle as Elektra and Renard) - and the worst action. Then we have Die Another Day, which seems like a comicbook adaption. Invisible cars, a satellite using the light of the sun as a huge destructive beam, Halle Berry as an American spy called Jinx, and RoboCop suits.....it's no surprise that EON want to make some changes. They're doing it constantly.

Casino Royale, how ever it turns out, can only be a step up from where the Bond series was.

DAD was more like a videogame adaptation than a comic book adaptation.

 

[Everyman]

They WANTED to reinvent Bond for DAD, but they didn't do what they wanted. They basically took the past 20 years of Bond movies, ate it it all and regurgitated it to fit a new storyline.




It started with Tomorrow Never Dies, continued to The World is Not Enough, and passed onto Die Another Day......the whole invincible and totally unbelievable and campy Bond. Those 3 movies are to Bond was Batman Forever and Batman & Robin are to the Batman franchise (maybe not as extreme, but you get the picture). The Bond movies have turned bland and predictable...it's time for a new way to look at Bond. If all else fails...it wouldn't be the first bad Bond movie and they'll just try again.

They tried, and perverted the spirit of James Bond. In the past, they did the same thing with Moonraker, DAF, even to some extend LTK. They always refreshed the franchise by going back to the basics, somehow. This franchise has been going on for 40 something years, rebooting it would be a mistake.

 

[Everyman]

You're still looking at this from the wrong perspective. Too closed-minded. You think BB, and you think prequel, restart, whatever. But it's so much more than that, as I illustrated in my previous post. STORYWISE the character is handled differently. I'm not talking about origins, I'm not talking about the start of some complex continuity, I'm talking about the character being handled better than it's been handled before. And that's what we need for Bond.

The way Bond movies are, I doubt it's even possible to make a prequel or a restart, save for one or two thing such as Bond's wife, there's no continuity whatsoever. When I speak of a BB-like reboot for Bond, they mean more about how the character is handled, more faithful to the book, and less of a hollyword effects fest.

I agree with you that it should be closer to the books, to some extend (the franchise has a life of its own, and a tone of its own too). I agree that the character should be handled better. But that's not a "reboot", that's simply being more disciplined and wiser with the material.

And a note aside: even if the continuity in Bond movies is loose, I think there should be a bit more. I think recurring villains need to be brought back in the franchise... They should have started it with Brosnan, they sadly did not.

 

[Everyman]

It's not 're-inventing', or 're-starting'. This stuff already existed, it's just that no-one has ever put it on film.

How does going back to the bare roots not work for Bond? Have you seen the film yet? No, of course not-for some weird reason you're afraid of exploring new territory. Bond is static and unchangeable because that's the way he has been filmed over almost 50yrs. Who are you to say that this can't be changed? Who are you to say that it cannot work under any circumstances?

Besides, you are blowing it out of proportion. Bond in Casino Royale is an established 00 agent. This is not Bond Begins. The only difference is that he's more vulnerable in this story and he's questioning the morality of working for such a service. We'll still see big explosions and bond kicking ass, which i assume is what you're most interested in.

You are caricaturing my words, and it is an ad hominem argument (and a falalcious one at that). NO, I don't want big explosions, I had my overdose with DAD, thank you, and neither me nor the franchise recovered from it yet. Is it clear enough? I want to go back to the sources as much as any Bond fan: a lot of time spent playing golf, canasta, roulette, a lot of time spent with Bond ordering dinner (and commenting on the drinks, food, etc), a lot of time spent with Bond actually SEDUCING a woman, drinking, establishing characters, etc. I am all in favor of going back to Bond's roots, if by that you mean back to what makes the character and story works, with a movie with minimal action (but when it happens it actually makes the plot go forward, and isn't there merely for eye-candy) and more atmosphere and character development. DO I MAKE MYSELF PERFECTLY CRYSTAL CLEAR? Next time, read the whole bloody post.

Okay, now about a Bond being static. Well, he is, and was as early as in the Fleming's novels. Read Umberto Eco's essay about it, he explains it better than me. His success as a franchise relies on a repetition of the same plot points, the same schematic characters, including Bond himself. It doesn't mean you cannot explore this character. It means that Bond, to survive and exist (and endure such a popularity) needs to be esentially unchanged (upper class, snobbish British spy, drinker and womanizer, epicurian but ready to sacrifice this for QUeen and Country). He is an archetype, and you don't change an archetype, not his essence anyway. This is why I am very skeptical about this prequel idea. Because, yes Bond hasn't changed in nearly 50 years, and it is partially the reason for his success. Yes, he has an origin, but the viewer didn't need to see it so far, partially because of the loose continuity. Going back to a time when he is a beginner in the 00 section is a sort of prequel, although a limited one. I am not saying it's not going to work, but I am skeptical. And a reboot/prequel or restart, as it was mentionned here and in different medias, could mean a destruction of the minimal continuity there is in the franchise, or a radical transformation of Bond as a character. There is a danger, and I don't think we can ignore it.

 

[Everyman]

I respect that people might not want to see a film like Casino Royale, but the reasons they give are just so ******ed.

I'm a member at Mi6 forums, and i swear most people have never read a Fleming novel. This is fine, no-one has to read anything-but then they claim to know what James Bond actually is. They think that the Bond we see in the films is what he's actually like. No, he's 100X more complex and interesting. Oh well, i've given up trying to tell them this.

1)The movie franchise gained a life of its own, from very early on.

2)I did read some James Bond novels, thank you...

3)Being a connaisseur doesn't give you the right of being patronising, or dismissive towards people who disagree with you. Neither does it give you the right to be intellectually dishonest and distort or invent the arguments of a person.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Lord....all they're doing is trying something new. If it doesn't work....big deal.....there HAVE been bad Bond movies before and he's survived them. There's also been an actor who's only played Bond ONCE before and Bond STILL survived that. The worse that could happen is we see a "what if" movie about a less experienced and more realistic Bond and they return to the original formula for the next movie.

 

[The Sage]

EDIT: Late.

 

[regwec]

And a note aside: even if the continuity in Bond movies is loose, I think there should be a bit more. I think recurring villains need to be brought back in the franchise... They should have started it with Brosnan, they sadly did not.

This is definately true. The only villains we've seen more than once in Bond films are Blofeld and Jaws (and he only appeared twice). Jaws is still alive in the franchise's continuity, and could easily make a return. Scaramanga took a bullet, but had one of the least climatic and convincing death scenes in any Bond movie. He could make a return. Doctor No supposedly died by sliding down a ladder. That simply won't do. We could have Doctor No reappear and attempt to reboot SPECTRE. I'd love that.