Daniel Craig confirmed as new James Bond

[Punisher 04]

sorry i love Bond and this casting sucks sumo size ass

Agree.

 

[Lazlo Panaflex]

Is the new guy at least athletic? some of those pictures don't show much.

 

[NulTide]

Is the new guy at least athletic? some of those pictures don't show much.

most of the previous bonds weren't that atheltic either. they were just handsome british guys, they didn't have the best physiques...

 

[Everyman]

You could easily say it does.

The series has become increasingly stale, unoriginal, uninspired and over reliant on gadgets and special effects. You could easily say that warrants a prequel and/or reboot in the sense that the film makers have to stop relying on the other films, have to make something new and fresh and innovative that stands firmly as a movie rather than an effects extravaganza with pretty bells and whistles.

That...sounds an awful lot like Batman Begins. Batman Begins didn't just go back and restart Batman history, it...reinvigorated the character, it dropped, nearly completely, the old methods of making a Batman movie, and instead tried something new, tried to draw it's appeal and quality from it's main character himself rather everything around him. Its makers saw all of the little, but very important, things its predecessors forgot about. It added onto the source material, rather than dumbing it down or leaving it out.

Frankly, that's exactly what I hope Casino Royal can do for the Bond franchise.

Contrarily to Batman, James Bond had a strong movie franchise for the last forty years, a movie hstory that is more famous than the novels it was based on, with an established, if imprecise, continuity. We never went to Bond's origins because he was already an established character, and this is what made him famous. Restarting his history would be suicidal. A prequel, and even moreso a reboot, doesn't work with the character: James Bond IS static and nearly uncheageable. Reinventing an established icon would be cheating. Yes, DAD was dumb, but they tried what you want them to do with Casino Royale: they wanted to "reinvent" Bond for the 21st. It failed miserably.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Yes, DAD was dumb, but they tried what you want them to do with Casino Royale: they wanted to "reinvent" Bond for the 21st. It failed miserably.

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.

 

[logansoldcigar]

Craig will be fine, in fact, i think he will be great. whether the film will be is a different matter. what interests me is why they feel the changes are necessary.

what do they want? critically acclaimed, lower BO?
or another DAD, which took a lot of money worldwide, but was rubbish.

 

[Octoberist]

I'm telling you Logan...

If they wanted a reboot, they should of hit it off with a clean slate. Martin Campbell and those moronic screenwriters should of been dropped. Sure the talented Paul Haggis is doing a polish on the script, but it's not like a PAGE 1 rewrite from scratch.

Too bad Christopher Nolan is too busy as of late...

 

[logansoldcigar]

Oh, i agree. Im just speculating as to where they wanna go. i actually think they will fall between the stools, and we will get a semi-reboot. itll be classed as an OK film, but nothing special, and will take a fair amount at the BO (DAD took about 450 million, worldwide, i dont think Casino Royale will match that, but i reckon if its half decenmt, about 2-300 mill will be a fair take). and they will class it as a failure.

 

[Octoberist]

Exactly, Logan. It's just a half-baked restart. Why should it even be a 'restart' with a prequel? Just get the right people and carry on.

I know that Campbell has a lot on the line here, so he won't screw it up.

Plus, Daniel Craig will be good. I just hope that people will have an open mind...

However, from a visual standpoint, I feel like HE NEEDS TO DYE HIS HAIR. To me, it'll just justify his looks and appeal, and that's what a lot of people thus far have been judging. With him dying his hair, it just completes the package...to me anyway. Despite him saying that he won't, he will. Watch...

Think about it. Look at the promotion shot of Craig. Due to the lighting, his hair looks darker right? But why is the lighting like that?Was it done on purpose? I think so, my friend. He's going to give in. For God's sakes, he dyed his hair dark brown for that Gwenyth Paltrow movie, not for this...the biggest movie of his LIFE? Hmm!

 

[CConn]

Contrarily to Batman, James Bond had a strong movie franchise for the last forty years, a movie hstory that is more famous than the novels it was based on, with an established, if imprecise, continuity. We never went to Bond's origins because he was already an established character, and this is what made him famous. Restarting his history would be suicidal. A prequel, and even moreso a reboot, doesn't work with the character: James Bond IS static and nearly uncheageable. Reinventing an established icon would be cheating. Yes, DAD was dumb, but they tried what you want them to do with Casino Royale: they wanted to "reinvent" Bond for the 21st. It failed miserably.

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.

 

[Tojo]

For Christ's sake it IS NOT A PREQUEL, just as Batman Begins wasn't a prequel. And re-boot isn't the term most would use. All it is is unchartered territory;

All previous 20 Bond films have had minimal continuity. Sure, they are all linked, but if you put them in any order it won't make any difference. They are not supposed to be sequels of eachother.

It's not even a restart. Why? Because with each actor who is cast as Bond, the film changes. The Connery era movies are very different to the Moore era, and they are different to Lazenby's film, which are different to dalton's films, which are different to Brosnan's films. Just as Craig's Bond film(s) will be different to the Brosnan era. If Clive Owen was cast, the same would happen.

Casino Royale is obviously the first Bond book written, and takes place around 3 yrs after he joins the Secret Service. So it'll obviously be called a prequel by dumbass tabloids, but it's not. All they are doing is exploring a side to Bond we haven't seen yet, which considering we've had 20 films where Bond hasn't actually progressed or even changed as a character, is quite a good idea. Don't worry, after this film it'll go back to what it was like before-unfunnt one liners, explosion after explosion, Bond shags woman, the end.

 

[Tojo]

Contrarily to Batman, James Bond had a strong movie franchise for the last forty years, a movie hstory that is more famous than the novels it was based on, with an established, if imprecise, continuity. We never went to Bond's origins because he was already an established character, and this is what made him famous. Restarting his history would be suicidal. A prequel, and even moreso a reboot, doesn't work with the character: James Bond IS static and nearly uncheageable. Reinventing an established icon would be cheating. Yes, DAD was dumb, but they tried what you want them to do with Casino Royale: they wanted to "reinvent" Bond for the 21st. It failed miserably.

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.

 

[CConn]

Exactly!

Thank you, Tojo.

 

[Tojo]

Exactly!

Thank you, Tojo.

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.

 

[regwec]

Bond is supposed to have teh dark hare!

Boo!

Honestly, everything Tojo and CConn are saying is right: the formula used in the last three movies was so superficial and muddled that it was simply unsustainable. Those of you who claim that it "ain't broke" have comically short memories: invisible cars, VR simulations, and bionic suits do not belong in any spy thriller that wants to preserve any element of dramatic tension. DAD might have worked as a spoof; but it wasn't even funny. It was just a convoluted mess.

There are many things about Craig that are great; he has a genuine cut-glass English accent, the first Bond since Roger Moore to do so; he has hardened, masculine features, whilst Brosnan looked like a shirt model; and most importantly, he will be the first Bond since Lazenby that could probably take an average joe in a fight.

Screw the blonde hair. It's dirty blonde, anyway. I doubt anyone will seriously pay it much heed.

One thing that I think is crucial to the next film is that 007 should never use an assualt rifle. I am sick to death of seeing Bond mow down platoons of soldiers with an AK47, as if he has a magical ability to make all of his bullets connect, whilst magentically repulsing incoming fire. He's a spy, not Rambo.

 

[neobido9999]

exaclty, bond only uses a pistol, and only when he's going to kill

 

[Hunter Rider]

I agree with those saying Bond needs a jolt in the story and execution department,whether Craig will be a good Bond or not im still not sure but the british press are crucifying him already,i thought they would dub him James Blond but they are calling him James Bland due to his lack of charisma

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

I agree with those saying Bond needs a jolt in the story and execution department,whether Craig will be a good Bond or not im still not sure but the british press are crucifying him already,i thought they would dub him James Blond but they are calling him James Bland due to his lack of charisma

But i guess they haven't seen something the producers have...his screentest.

I guess we will just have to wait dude.

it's superman returns all over again..although the critics quite like the choice..it's just us fans who don't.

 

[Hunter Rider]

But i guess they haven't seen something the producers have...his screentest.

I guess we will just have to wait dude.

it's superman returns all over again..although the critics quite like the choice..it's just us fans who don't.

At the moment i am unsure about him,the official pic is pretty good IMO and as you say there may have been something in the screen test,i can't say im excited about this film anymore but i will wait to see a trailer before writing it off

 

[Tojo]

I agree with those saying Bond needs a jolt in the story and execution department,whether Craig will be a good Bond or not im still not sure but the british press are crucifying him already,i thought they would dub him James Blond but they are calling him James Bland due to his lack of charisma

Yeah, but the British tabloids know nothing about everything.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Yeah, but the British tabloids know nothing about everything.

LOL if they'd said he was brilliant you wouldn't have said that
Anyway they interviewed him yesterday along with the worlds press and all articles are saying the same,he was dull with no charisma and gave monosylibic one word answers to all the questions.
Now when he gets onscreen maybe thinks will change but there's no denying he didn't come over very charming at the press conference and the bookies already have him at 10 to 1 to be fired after 1 film

 

[regwec]

all articles are saying the same,he was dull with no charisma and gave monosylibic one word answers to all the questions

The journalists who wrote those articles must be total morons. They are effectively complaining that Daniel Craig is not James Bond. Well, no *****! And here was I thinking that James Bond was a fictional character who various actors had played in the past! I really had no idea that it was essential for an actor's off screen personality and lifestyle to be identical to their on-screen role! It was pretty stupid of Christian Bale to go to all of those Batman press conferences without a mask, wasn't it? And how come no one has arrested Anthony Hopkins on multiple charges of murder yet?

 

[Hunter Rider]

The journalists who wrote those articles must be total morons. They are effectively complaining that Daniel Craig is not James Bond. Well, no *****! And here was I thinking that James Bond was a fictional character who various actors had played in the past! I really had no idea that it was essential for an actor's off screen personality and lifestyle to be identical to their on-screen role! It was pretty stupid of Christian Bale to go to all of those Batman press conferences without a mask, wasn't it? And how come no one has arrested Anthony Hopkins on multiple charges of murder yet?

Most actors Put some of themselves into a role,Bond requires Charm and charisma and he seemed to lack it

 

[Tojo]

LOL if they'd said he was brilliant you wouldn't have said that
Anyway they interviewed him yesterday along with the worlds press and all articles are saying the same,he was dull with no charisma and gave monosylibic one word answers to all the questions.
Now when he gets onscreen maybe thinks will change but there's no denying he didn't come over very charming at the press conference and the bookies already have him at 10 to 1 to be fired after 1 film

No they are still morons regardless of what they say about Craig.

And he's only signed to one film anyway.

 

[Two-Face]

No they are still morons regardless of what they say about Craig.

And he's only signed to one film anyway.

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.