Cool News
Echoes of Dr. No found in CASINO ROYALE?
Hey folks, Harry here and these pics got my temperature rising! Daniel Craig is looking 'manly' as hell in these shots. All the controversy about Craig aside, I love the casting. He looks like a killer - he looks like a guy that could charm, yet use women. He looks like someone that's drank perhaps a bit much to wash down pain. I love the visual echoes to DR. NO in these shots. Really really fun. I got sent like 40 sets of these pics - so, I'll just thank all of you that put them before my eyes, very appreciated! Here ya go...
-
+ Expand All
-
I think Craig will be a great Bond personally.
-
I think the way they are taking this bond is going to revitalise the franchise. Craig looks hard as nails, like a guy who has come through the forces and seen some action.
-
first talk back and first first!
daniel craig is fuckin smockin as ol' jimmy bond.... but not in a gay way. -
I love Daniel Craig, but from a girls perspective, he is not quite right. He's got the edge but too much so. I will reserve judgement, until I have seen the film, but he seems too accessible to be Bond so far.
-
Still is going to suck...look who is directing it.
-
Yup.
-
I still have a feeling that this is make or break time for the Bond franchise. Cast whoever you want as Bond, it all comes down to Broccoli. To paraphrase Dana Carvey, it's time to be choppin' Broccoli out of any and all future Bond movies.
-
In his first fight on the set, this 'manly' man 'Harry' is drooling over, got his two front teeth knocked out by new baddie, Lars or whatever. All I want for Chrithmath, ith my thwo front teef...
-
And you say they got your temperature rising, Harry? Something you're not telling us? I feel sorry for the boom mic guy anyway.
-
He's been a badass in just about everymovie I've seen him in and he has the slightly worn look that I always thought Bond was supposed to have. if anyone ruined the series it was Roger Moore. Then Pierce Brosnan. The only time Pierce nailed Bond was in The Thomas Crown Affair.
-
I kinda wish they'd dye his hair black or brown though.
-
The last movie sucked, sure. Even though it made the most money. But you don't fix it by firing Brosnan and keeping the shit writers. That would be like firing George Clooney and keeping Schumacker for Batman Begins. Having said that, Daniel Craig looks like his Bond will be closer to the Fleming novels. They actually tried the more faithful approach with Timothy Dalton and guess what, he sucked. The Bond of the films needs to look like he's having fun capping fools, chugging vodka and slapping bitches. A stuffy, humorless Bond just doesn't work on the bog screen.
-
Since when did Mr.Bond turn into a well fit guy? This guy looks like someone you'd find in an MTV movie.
BUT, his role in "Munich" was really good, and maybe they are trying to get into the whole realism thing they got going over there in hollywood these days (which is a good thing). -
about all i see about echoing dr.no is a guy in tight speedo shorts walking out of the ocean if that doesnt warm ya than what will!!... other than that i just read that our new bond can't drive stick...nice
-
He was the kind of guy who, not only kills a guy in a humiliating way, but then makes a bad pun about as he walks out the door. He was the kind of guy who smiles while he chokes a chick with her own bikini top. No other Bond has really maintained that kind of brutal aspect of the character that Connery was so good at. Craig looks like he can do it, and I hope they let him. They probably won't, though. Not PC.
-
gets harry's "temperature rising"?then again, i suppose it wouldn't be AICN without harry's barely-disguised homoerotic commentary to keep things moving along.
-
Lazenby is generally regarded as the least of the Bond actors, but OHMSS one of the best films. Whether one likes Connery or Moore, no one really disputes the greatness of Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me. I found myself completely won over by Brosnan's Bond on many levels, but don't dispute for a minute the fact that the last two Bond flicks rank among the worst in the franchise. I have no clue how good or bad a Bond Craig will be, but at this point it doesn't much matter. The franchise has been rotting from the top, and if this film doesn't get the franchise back on track with a strong script and solid direction, the sun will continue to set on this franchise.
-
I still dont buy it- craig cant help but look like a lowly henchman-does not look very classy. brosnan had style-brosnan forever!!!!!! down with craig down with craig down with craig. kill his family!!!!
-
he's got a fuck-load of pock marks on his face (picked too many spots when he was an unhinged acne-ridden youth I guess). Erm, this insightful observation aside, I'm on Moriarty's side when I say that the positive hype for this so far has been deceptive. I agree the casting seems great, and the very fact that they're covering a Fleming book again is a boon, but then there's that Poker change (I'm a big poker fan but it just turns this into Shrek), there's the rumours of the poor script and a few other niggling little seeds of doubt. I guess if this turns good then both Mori and me will have to eat our hats (mine's made of hemp so it won't be too bad).
-
was 200% pa to the thetic. madea's family reunion easily came out on top with 10 million, but running scared and doogal bombed big time with a million EACH, i guess these worthless titles shoulda gone directly to dvd and have eight below and date movie come out THIS WEEKEND. can't wait to see what ice age 2 does at the box office.
-
underneath the mango tree...
my honey and me... -
Because if not it really really really should be.
-
can he chew?
-
Reminds me more of someone like Joe Montana on holiday than James Bond on her majesty's secret service.
-
..It's not the casting that's gonna make this movie suck, it's the god-awful script and story and director. Craig is gonna be the Lazenby of the new millenium. He won't be given another shot when this one blows chunks even if he deserved it.
-
You can save the period piece Bond for TV movies in 30-40 years when the copyright on the novels expires.
I read the book for the first time a couple nights ago and it's an outline of a good story that does need a lot of fleshing out. A straight adaption of the novel wouldn't live up to cinematic franchise, nor would it be strong enough for an good arthouse film without embelishment. Not to mention it'd run about 70 minutes long.
I'm hoping people will give Craig a shot at Bond and rip the director/screenwriter/producer if it's terrible. However, both screenplay reviews out there have been quite positive, albeit with some minor quibbles. I know Moriatry ripped on it but the only things he knows about the script are what he read from a review which called the script "A-, almost perfect". -
According to Latinoreview, it looks like Joaquin Phoenix is probably going to be cast as John CLark in an upcomming WITHOUT REMORSE movie!! KICK ASS!! Now be honest, doesnt that beat the hell out of BOND WEARS TRUNKS news???
-
Chavs in hot pants! Hilarious! Seriously though, he looks more like Bruno than Ali G on any given day!
-
the fact that the guy has the face of a heroin addict is what we've all been talking about for the past week. But hey, who am I to get in the way of this past week's apologist non news articles?
-
Every time i see this guy, I always think that he should be singing, "Its a jolly 'oliday with maaaaryyyy."
-
...I know, I'm a girl. Hubba hubba!
-
I wish I knew how to quit you, brother!
-
Feb 25, 2006 1:04:17 PM CST
Homoerotic Bondage indeed... what a pair of... trunks!
by alucardvsdracula
-
With Layer Cake proving he can be as good a Bond as Brosnan, and not the suave one, but the sly semi-maniac from the books. From Road to Perdition to Enduring Love to Munich to The Mother to Sylvia, Craigy shows that he will be the deep Bond, not the wisecracking easily-accessible but somewhat false Bond we've got ever since Moore came around. Even if the script blows, Craig will nail it and, I wholeheartedly believe, so will Campbell.
-
He does indeed. One only has to see him in "Munich" to realize this ("It's a shande to the goyim!"). And you know, I can't get the image of him boning that elderly lady in "The Mother" out of my mind. Ew.
-
or did the sea make his legs shrink?
-
Anyone who saw Layer Cake and isn't a moron knows this guy is going to rule as Bond. Anyone who didn't see Layer Cake should shut their mouth until they shift their fat arse down to Blockbuster and rent it. As far as i've seen this whole "controversy" is based only on the fact that he has blonde hair! Inbeciles!
-
The Bond music will swell, Craig will walk out into the bullseye and all will be forgiven and forgotten.
-
instead of fuckin whining and bitching online! Craig is different, i loved brosnan i think with the exception of goldeneye he deserved better films not the shit that was churned out. But he's gone and Craig is a fuckin excellent actor who can really bring something different to this....so for the love of christ stop with the fuckin moaning and support what so far looks like a far better fuckin movie than the last 3. Some of you people make me wanna fuckin puke.
-
I have always liked Craig...think he will kick ass as bond. Also, I read both script reviews that were quite positive and it sold me. As far as Campbell goes, well yeah, he's made some shit, but he's also made some really good, fun movies as well. And finally, looking at those pics, I truely believe that Craig could kick the living shit outta all the other bonds (easily).. I guess connery would give him some trouble, but it would be fun to watch :)
-
I agree with those saying that stripping Bond of his nearly superhuman qualities (and let's face it, Bond is as much a fantasy figure as is Batman or Spiderman, less the colorful mask and tights) will result in the loss of the character's big screen appeal. Even the Connery Bond was nearly a superhuman character.
-
...It's how he is written. Sorry to say it, because I really enjoy many of the older Bond movies, but Bonds attitude and character and flare are out dated. He doesn't fit in a modern world doing his usual schtick. They should either totally re-do the character's personality (but then why call it Bond anymore right?) or set all the films in the 1960s since that's where his attitude and personality belongs. I never got into the the "modern" bonds for that reason.
-
Now that gets my temperature rising. Or the Greek chick from For Your Eyes Only. Teresa's yummy, sorta like Chu Mi. Or Dr. Holly Goodhead. Plenty O'Toole is classic. I'd even be down for a go-around with Bambi & Thumper. I bet Harry likes Magda the best.
-
He is, by all accounts, a good actor. He looks like he's in great shape, so he can do the physical stuff. He looks like he'd have no qualms about putting a bullet in someone's head, man or woman. And he looks like women would drop their knickers for him whenever he wanted some. So what's the problem with Craig? My bigger fear would be the director Martin Campbell -- I love Goldeneye, but Campbell's track record recently really doesn't make you think that Casino Royale will be any darker or, God help me for using this cliche, grittier than the Brosnan films. With luck, Campbell's going to mix his blockbuster work with his TV work and create something that looks great but has an edge: he did shoot some episodes of Homicide. And he does make things blow up real purty -- the mine explosion in the first Zorro was excellent in theaters. If someone can give me logical reasons why Craig should be getting bashed, I'd be really interested in considering their point of view. And if hair color gets brought up, you instantly nullify any credibility.
-
I will tell you why. People that dont like him, myself included, basically think that Craig doesnt look like James Bond. If you film him from one angle--from below and to his left, he looks okay. Not as good as Brosnan, but an okay looking guy. The problem is when you look at him from any other angle--his forehead (and the rest of the top of his cranium) is kinda swelled. His ears stick out, and his eyes tend to be squinty. check out this pic. This is usually how he looks in every movie he's ever played. He looks more like Keith Richards (ie a heroine addict). Its no coincidence that a lot of us have been saying that the guy looks like a German version of Bond. Thinning hair, jutting forehead, pinched features, and a drunkard's nose. If i were casting for a WW2 flick, just which side of the fight would I cast Craig? Oh, and here's the pic: http://tinyurl.com/gha3z
-
If it reads like I'm ranting and ranting, I appologize. But that is pretty much the gyst of why we dont like the Craig guy--at the very least, why i dont like him. He's a great actor, i just dont think he looks like a bond. And to the people above who said Connery looked like a thug. Sorry, but back then, that isnt what they thought. People found him to have a typically handsom face. Its only by today's standards (where we dont seem to value rugged looks in favor of pretty boy faces) that we deem connery's look as thuggish. Craig doesnt remotely look rugged. He simply looks brutish. anywho..
-
The Berman & Braga of 007 is Purvis and Wade. I'll leave it at that. Check out some more cool photos from the set, including some cool ones with Craig doing stunts:
http://debrief.commanderbond.net/index.php?showtopic=29182 -
Bond isn't fully human. He's a charming, well-disguised psychopath, a pit-bull occasionally unleashed on Her Majesty's enemies. What do you want him to look like, some simpering pretty-boy? He's been in the wars (literally). Craig is excellent casting and this guy can ACT.
-
If they do indeed go the jason bourne route (and im crossing my fingers for that to be so) and not the route of the last movie (which im cynical enough to think that is a good possibility), than I will be first in line for the movie.
-
I made it plain that i dont want him looking like a pretty boy (early moore). However, i dont want him looking like Keith Richards, either (craig). A happy medium would be either connery, dalton, and brosnan. I understand you prefer the literal translation v. what cinematic, but guess what? That hasnt happened--ever. People associate connery and brosnan types with being Bond. Very few prefer moore, dalton, lazenby, and craig (aside from talkbalks, I have honestly yet to meet those who like the look of craig). Now, i aint saying the movie will necessarily be bad or good. In my opinion, it could go either way. I'm hoping the bourne identity route. But my fears are with the current producers, they will go DAD route. We will see. But so far, i havent seen anything to get me enthused.
-
wimp who makes wise cracks all the time (Moore) or who is way too smug (Brosnan)
-
He's taken surveys, asked questions, gone 'round the world to discover what people think of Craig as Bond. Half the fucking planet doesn't even know that Brosnan is gone. They'll know when the first trailer goes wide. WE still don't know exactly how he'll look. Shit through the lens makes a difference. Let's wait and see. So far he looks like a rugged manly man with the ability to kick ass frequently. Wining and dining isn't hard to do, no matter how "handsome" a man might not be. Also, I say "manly man" in the highest respect.
-
which is why they threw hot pants on DOG THE BOUNTY HUNTER!!!
-
... Because the average Joe Shmoe on the street knows dick about Bond. They think he should look like the guy in a Milk Tray commercial.
-
Feb 25, 2006 4:52:14 PM CST
I think it's time the purists need to accept that...
by abcdefghijklmnop
...the Bond films are little more than family entertainment at this point. They pull in such huge numbers because they appeal to all demographics. People don't associate Bond with being a brutal killer (something he didn't even like doing in the books), they associate him with stuff like Die Another Day. Craig could prove to be a good choice for harcore fans, but he will not go over well with the average moviegoer. There's nothing wrong with making a realistic spy thriller, but you have to accept that its appeal will be far more limited in scope. The producers have demonstrated that they are not willing to accept this, and that's why out of 20 films very few are taken seriously. This film could be the best reviewed film of the year, but if it doesn't pull in the numbers, it's going to be back to ice palaces and super lasers.
-
okay, think acting-wise daniel craig isn't a problem. he looks like he had his face fucked by a terminator, but otherwise a good actor. however, i thought layer cake was a horrible movie with a plot and design that just mimicked better movies that came before. much of the dialog was incoherant and that made it hard to watch. i've watched many many films featuring the english accent and this one was hard to follow at times. i didn't see anything worthwhile in the movie. just generic. craig is good though.
-
Even if they wanted to make Bond more gritty he could have done it easily. He was already quite a balls-out Bond, especially in Goldeneye and parts of the other 3 movies. e.g. when he killed Elektra King (Sophie Marceau) in cold blood in The World Is Not Enough (a high point in a mediocre movie).
-
I'm watching "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" as I write this...both thinking about how good Lazenby could've been if he stayed on and how incredible Diana Rigg was back in the day. Anyway, to Mr. Craig. I'm actually glad to see some positive posts for once. Maybe that stupid anti-Craig web site's gotten more people to rally to Craig's defense. I think someone wrote it best saying that the film makers have to let the "PC shackles" off of Bond and let him be the mysogist diosaur we all know and love. If they say "screw everyone who might be offended" by his sexism and violence, well, the press said the same thing about Bond 40 years ago and doesn't everyone long for the days when Bond would kill in cold blood or smack a uncooperative woman around if he needed information? I still don't have faith that that'll happen but Craig embodies, at least physically, someone you don't want to mess with. Also, I remember people saying that the Bond "spying" routine was outdated and they're right. Bond should be played, as usual, as a man of the world but as that "blunt instrument" MI6 sends out to take care of business. Who cares if everyone knows who and what he is! It's like a Western where a stranger walks into a crowded saloon, orders a drink, the bartender asks his name and he replies "Wyatt Earp". Then, half the room stops and looks at him. If this was Bond, women would swoon over him. Men would know not to mess with him. And his enemies would know that he's deadly and someone they would need to get out of the way. Just forget about the old days of "secret codes and passwords". Just let him loose on a dangerous world!
-
So, yeah, Craig is going to have false teeth in the movie because he took a kick to the face while doing his own stunts. Connery wore a toupee because he was bald. Which is less cool?
-
That's not Daniel Craig that's Red Grant the Russian assassin you can't fool me!
-
I admit, i kinda cracked myself up when I thought he looked like DOG THE BOUNTY HUNTER IN HOT PANTS. But you sir, you are far funnier. CRAIG IS RED GRANT THE RUSSIAN ASSASSIN!! or a nazi stooge, take your pick. I keep calling him a nazi lookalike cause i just got done watching Raiders of the lost arc last week, and I cant tell you how many Craig's i saw in that movie.
-
From now on, every time i look at craig, im gonna think of FROWL HITTING HIM IN THE OLE' BREADBASKET
-
Not true at all. I've got the script right here on my desk right now. I know quite a bit about what they're doing, and about the places where the decision making process hopped the tracks.
-
That's our new, cool, tough BOND. No body hair at all. Did it hurt when he got his balls waxed? Craig in his swimsuit looks disgusting. I know we all can't be as hairy as Connery (well, I can, but most can't) but,come on, he looks like Schwarzennerger in his bodybuilding days. Ick.
-
This is gonna be the new millenium, euro trash bond: he waxes his body, takes 'roids, and has the build/face of a thug. Gonna be the same problems as the last one, too. He's fighting terrorists in this one (just like last time). He's driving a matchbox car (just like last one). He's got the same M. He's got the same producers. He's got the same level of writers. The entire story is going to revolve around poker. More and more, this movie is looking like Die Another Day without the one thing that made us watch that turd of a movie in the first place.
-
legs of any bond? He looks like he's 90% torso
-
I'm pretty disturbed by the extreme comments made on this talk back concerning Craig as bond looking like a "nazi" and a "thug". I think its retarded to judge Craig so quickly based entierly on his appearance, He ruled in Layer Cake and thats all the evidence I need to prove he'll be a great Bond. Brosnan was a pussy and by the last movie he was barely there at all performance wise. All this Craig hate is unfounded and perpetuated by idiots who fear change.
-
Anyway, if this is the "origin" story, how will continuity with the Brosnan movies work? Brosnan was 007 before Judi Dench was M. It's obviously not being set in the 1950s or 1960s. Ah, well, those are just trivialities. I survived "Star Trek Enterprise."
-
...Isn't the way he looks. In fact I like the rugged hardcore been through hell kind of look. It suits a hardcore Bond (If they're going that route, though I doubt it)...My problem lies squarely with the fact that he has done nothing to make me believe that he has any charisma on screen which is a really important element of James Bond. While I thought Layer Cake was enjoyable Daniel Craig just seemed to move around the scenes making sure he didn't bump into any furniture. In Tomb Raider he was hideous...but to his credit he was one of the only strong points in Munich...And every actor needs a breakout role to show what they can do *cough* Paul Walker/Running Scared *cough*...Also I love the rest of the casting for this picture though, so I'm hoping I'll be pleasantly surprised by Mr. Craig...Shoulda still been set in the 60's *grumble* *grumble* heh
-
Casino Royale was never 'really' a james Bond film, per say. I hope it's just a one off. Really.
-
Still one of the best opening lines for a character, I think. This whole Craig-bashing thing will continue until the movie opens and then it'll be silenced, cause Craig is quite right for the part as a younger Bond. You all can kneel and thank the movie gods somewhere they didn't go for the James Bond Junior crap, like in the animated tv show. First priority of EON should have been a fucking script that made some fucking sense. The only thing that kept the franchise moving since GoldenEye were the actors (and, most of all the actresses: Famke Jansen, Sophie Marceau and Halle Berry... yum and good actresses too!). Script, producers, is something else than a bunch of action sequences and one-liners written down in script format. Give Mamet or Kasdan a shot at the material and let someone like McTiernan or Fincher direct.
-
When I was younger I went to the drive in and watched 'A View to a kill'. Madness - I loved it!! Anyways, being raised on all the James Bond films, I asked the question "Why does James Bond look liker a different man" (There was Connery and Lazenby. duh) And I was told that 'James Bond 007' was a code name for the top secret agents". Later down the track we see Dalton (Whom I just could not handle as Bond) and then Brosnan. I fucking love Brosnan as Bond. I also loved the last film too. But not that piece of boring shit before it! Anyway, I'm edging towards a point here, someone in the cinema to 'Goldeneye' said the exact same fucking thing! "the 00 is the absolute TOP of the secret agents." So these guys and their films have all been coherant sequels. Wow. Wieeeerd.
-
Theyve removed the only thing that was right i.e. Brosnan. So now were going to have all those negative points and an actor just getting into the role
-
He is a great actor. Go watch MUNICH, ENDURING LOVE or LAYER CAKE. He looks like he could kick arse and still have sex appeal to bed girls. He looks like a killer. I think he'll do an excellent Bond. I can believe Craig in that role would kill someone in cold blood, I can't believe it with Brosnan. The latter always struck me as a George Hemilton type who knows more about Brioni ties and Zegna suits than slugging it out as a thug.
-
Then why don't you share those "places where the decision making process hopped the tracks"?Write up an article totally SLAMMING Broccoli and Wilson and what they've done to Bond, similiar to what you did for Abrams' SUPERMAN script and what had been going on with X-MEN 3 and Rothman. WE have no legitimate voice, YOU do. PLEASE, on behalf of a huge fan of the Fleming novels, please write up something. I beg you. (P.S. At least point out that Broccoli and Wilson are so clueless, they didn't even have the common sense to dye Craig's hair black, like he had done in SYLVIA. If they had, I truely believe the majority of his naysayers would be gone.)
-
not two or three days after news stations/papers were saying "Fans the world over" thought he was ugly. Hmm, guess the producers felt the reports were a bit dangeorus. What cracks me up is that THESE are the pics they feel vindicate Craig. The pics that make him look like the unholdy product of KEITH RICHARDS AND GOLD'S GYM!!!
-
In those photos Craig looks just like Halle Berry did in Die Another Day, you know, colorful swinwear and a Hollywood trained body. Now we just need a man with a rugged hairy chest like Brosnan to buy Craig a mojito and screw him.
-
Your memories have been diluted by Die Another Day. Watch Goldeneye for the best depiction of James Bond ever. This opinion has been backed up by Ian Fleming's cousin and confidant Christopher Lee.
-
Feb 26, 2006 6:57:00 AM CST
Brosnan doesn't look like he could kill in cold blood?
by bendersshinyass
Bullshit. Remember that Casino Royale is being sold as a bond film, but Bond in Casino royale is merely just a character amoungst MANY. David niven played Bond in the original. Think about this.
-
http://tinyurl.com/f5sxg and this one: http://tinyurl.com/j54w4 and finally this one: http://tinyurl.com/l4qev Boy, when i saw those pics, i sure thought to myself, "Holly fucking shit, they finally he's JAMES Fucking BOND!"
-
Remember way back when LOTR was being filmed, you had all these idiotic trolls who were screaming bloody murder that there was no scouring of the shire, Tom Bombadil, extra unneeded romance, etc? THe same thing is happening here. You've got a relative handfull of people who dont understand the difference between literature and cinema. And the more you try to convince them of that, the more they will call you a philistine, retard, or dumbass. Whats even more infuriating a lot of these people actually think the producers are trying to make a literal bond when all they are doing is making the same mistakes they did last movie, and just hiring a cheaper actor--end of story.
-
Particularly if it's a later revision.
-
No Niven did not first bring Casino Royale. The first bond to ever be brought to the screen was Casino Royale, but it was B&W for TV and was produced in England well before Niven did a film ala Bond. And Nivens Casino Royale was just a spoof of the bond films likewise the Flint films and Powers films. Now onto Craig. Yeah these pics don't add any fire to this film, but I will give him a chance. Prosnan was a great Bond and he was given the chance. Lazenby was also a great bond but he was never given the chance. I hope people will go with an open mind relizing they will see something familar and also fresh.
-
"when all they are doing is making the same mistakes they did last movie, and just hiring a cheaper actor--end of story" The problem with what you say though is that you haven't read the script and you haven't seen a single frame of the film, yet you are overwhelmingly negative. You may even turn out to be right in the end (I don't agree with you however) but until we've seen a single damn frame of Craig as Bond I think we should wait and see. And that is what it all boils down to in the end: people that are willing to give Craig a chance, and people that aren't.
-
No matter which direction they are going in is there a good reason for Bond to have a shaven body and hot pants?
And why hasn't someone done something about Craig's hair in those shots? He's being filmed with his hair looking too bald. There are water proof hair pieces. -
Its not a question of giving him a chance or not, Katanga. I agree with you, I have not read the script. However, am I not allowed to comment on what we all do know? We all know how Craig looks. We all know who the producers are. WE already know they changed the film's central theme to poker. We know the type of car. We know others in the cast. Am I allowed to be hesitant and negative to what we've seen so far? Am I allowed to have a view on what should be Bond? Granted, others are, too. Which is the entire point of this talkback, katanga:to voice them. People like you always say to be open minded about a film until the end credits role. And you know what? I'm sick of it. Things are either apealing in their advertisement (and dont think for one moment that these stills are anything but) or they are not. I'm not saying i wont give the film a chance. I am saying that I feel he looks completely horrible as Bond. And I have already scene photos to form the opinion. Its sorta like if i were to tell you to give eddie murphy a chance to play superman. What's that you say? You feel he's wrong for the part? But Katanga, you arent giving eddie a chance!!
-
lol to your post, well done. Its not that I want people to offer no opinion whatsoever until the credits role, its just that you seem to be not so much hesitant about this film as OVERWHELMINGLY NEGATIVE. You say you're only commenting on what we know, yet you said that they are making the same mistakes as the last film? I don't see any evidence of this yet, maybe if theres an invisible fucking car in the trailer i will agree. And comparing Craig's casting to casting eddie murphy as superman.. I mean, I know you're joking but its still symptomatic of your exaggeration in general. Its a question of degrees I guess.
-
Again this is just total NEGATIVE OVERKILL. Most girls I know thought he looked gorgeous in those pics, he obviously HASNT been taking steroids lol.
-
Yawn Yawn Yaaaaaaawn
-
Yeah, I admit, you are right--it is a question of degrees. You are also quite correct that I'm going a smidge over the top(understatement). Hell, I've been calling the guy Dog the Bounty hunter! Half of my comments i stand by, and half are simply exagerating for the purposes of attention and/or humor. If I could set aside the exageration for a moment, I will say that overall, if this movie is more realitic (ala Bourne identity), than this will probably be one of my all time favs. I am obviously not a fan of crag being bond (although I think he's a great actor), but he would kick ass as a legitimate military type. And despite what everybody has said about him being like connery (he isn't), we have never seen a hardcore Bond. In my opinion, Brosnan was more like Connery than anything else (no matter what you say about the movies themselves). Personally, I believe the producers are setting their sights on trying to be more like the bourne identity movies. And if so, keen! But I also obviously have my doubts, which are supported by the script rewrite to poker, the car, and seemingly the same supporting cast as the last movies. And you are right, its too early to tell definitively one way or another. In the end, I think the film will be more like Goldeneye (and thus negate the need for a mylitary type Craig) than anything else, but who knows? That pretty much describes my opinion. Good enough, Katanga? By the way, thanks for refraining from the more ubiquitous "you f***ing retard" approach.
-
pro Brosnan and cant see why a decent, good bond who a generation have grown up with has been replaced. Least not the fact that nearly everyone attributes the need for a reboot not on brosnans shoulders but on the producers
-
If I wanted Jason Bourne, I'll see a Jason Bourne movie. I want a Bond film. There are differences. If they go the "Jason Bourne route" as some of you are hoping for, this will fail because people will look at it and say "Oh it's the same ol same ol" just like they are now. Why is box office down? Because people are tired of the same old thing for every movie. Bourne Identity did well, XXX did not. Why? Because XXX was a Bourne ripoff and XXX 2 was even more so. I want Bond, not Bourne. Unfortunately I think some of you are gonna get your wish.
-
I didnt mean bourne as in story line, editing, or any of that sort of thing. I meant just a more realistic approach to spying. I still want Bond to be suave, a lady's man, flashy, and yet still smooth and deadly as ice--everything Bourne wasnt (save for the deadly part). I guess im kinda rooting for a From Russia With Love movie, y'know? Course, I already had the perfect actor for that with Brosnan. Both you and flaminggrunt said it best, however. It should be a bond flick (not eurotrash imitators like XXX) and the reboot should have consisted of the producers being fired, not Brosnan
-
the ultimate problem is that the people making the films, be it the producers or the studio, seem to be dead set against making a Bond film that would reflect the brutality of the violence in the books and the sexual rawness that accurately reflects the reality of a character able to basically fuck anyone he wants to, any time he wants to. So I don't think we're going to get a really "edgy", really kinda rough film until The Powers That Be become willing to make an R-rated film. I'm sure Martin Campbell's capable of that; I'm sure Craig would be willing. But it seems like it's gotta be PG13 or nothing. The strange thing--and this is why the family-friendly crowd is so wrong--is that everyone who grew up loving the Bond films is now well over 17 and mature enough to handle whatever the films throw at us. I guess that's the nature of franchise. It would be fantastic to give really daring directors a chance to do these things. Imagine what Tarantino or Fincher or John Woo or Luc Besson could do with this character.
-
I think I remember reading somewhere that there was a clause in the film rights to Bond; the director had to be englih. Am I right in thinking that? I do remember reading that, or something to that effect, but i dont know if that was bunk or not. Any of you know what I'm talking about?
-
YOU F**KING RETARD!!! just kidding... yeah i think your post above is pretty sensible. I also still have the image of Eddie Murphy playing Superman stuck in my head lol. Funnily enough I watched From Russia With Love recently, and while a lot of it has dated, connery's performance hasn't. Today I watched a little of World Is not Enough and i had to turn it off... Brosnan just seems like such a lightweight. He's handsome, no question, but he could hardly be less physically intimidating in IMO. It just feels like he's faking it. I think thats why I'm excited about Craig... he's a serious actor with presence and range. Also regarding Bourne, I think the reason they are cited is that those films showed you could make a profitable, exciting spy thriller without invisible cars and cgi windsurfing. I don't think casino royale will be a Bourne knock off, but I do think they will try and inject a little drama into the proceedings. there is hardly ANY affecting DRAMA in the Brosnan bonds. My only fear is that Martin Campbell doesn't have what it takes. Would dearly love to see Christopher Nolan direct one.
-
No, youre the F***ing Retard!!! LOL. You know, I hadnt thought about that--Brosnan wasnt intimidating. Thats a very good point. Maybe size has something to do with it? Brosnan, although I think he's the same height, never seemed as big as Connery. I had never noticed that until you said that. You are so right about World is not Enough. I kinda felt Die Another Day was ehhh. But World is NOT Enough had to be one of the most...BLAND bond movies I have ever seen. But I still say Im a huuuge fan of Tommorrow never dies. Even though the villain seemed like Dr. Evil, I just looved the heck out of that movie. Guess I got bad taste, huh? Still, TND will never be as good as GOLDFINGER. That has got to be my personal fav. Maybe its the classy tune, or the fact that you have a character named pussy galore, but that goes down as my favorite--narrowly beating From Russia With Love. But just by thiiiiiss much.
-
...who thinks this, and someone was casting aspersions at him above, I must say: Timothy Dalton rules as Bond!
-
3 Bag Enema said it true enough. Connery was what I quite imagine Bond to be when translated from book to film. If you come from the UK, then you know what kind of people would be attracted to MI5 as a career in field espionage - they would be wildly arrogant, intelligent and brutal thugs. They would have ex-military background as a given (in this case, the Navy) and it's not suave gentlemen in the Navy, it's hard-as-nails thugs, the same as the Army and Royal Air Force. I'm not saying you're some neanderthal if you work in any of these areas, but to be a FIELD operative in any of them - you've got to have a few crossed wires. Connery nailed this. He was an arrogant and intelligent guy, but he had the brutality and thuggery of one who's served in the military; he also carried it off with a bit of comic aplomb. I'll forever love Goldfinger and From Russia With Love.
-
Feb 26, 2006 10:46:28 PM CST
For the first time I believe Danial Criag might work.
by excaliburffolkes
He looks all business in these photos. The one nice thing about the series periodically changing who plays Bond is that the character gets to evolve a bit more contemporary each time as well. Connery was the classic 1950's gentleman spy, Moore was the suave 1970's Playboy spy, Dalton was the deadly serious 1980's corporate spy, and Brosnon was the slick 1990's post-Cold War spy. I can't wait to see what kind of Bond Danial Criag plays.
-
But a nomadic tribesman writing mythology 2000 years ago in the desert can tell me how to lead my life in the 21 century. Brilliant!
-
What's wrong with the youth in asia? Yuk yuk yuk...
-
Erm..... Dan Craig has dark hair in that shot of him getting out of the plane. And he has dark hair in the three other pics of him with dry hair. He is NOT James Blonde !!! So we can park the whole hair thing permenantly. 'Kay ?
-
I get so sick and tired of the people whine when something is implied in a movie rather than shown completely. I remember back when ROTS came out and everybody here whined about how they never got to see the children whacked by Anakin. People who prefer to see the actual details of every romantic tryst, bullet wound, and swear word should be called out for what they are: blood-thirsty monsters. How on earth people like that actually think they require more pushing of the envelope than before is beyond me. Well, I have a few theories, but I wont get into that here in a TB.
-
Should've been played by Peter Weller. Nothing against Jeffrey Wright, but Weller would've fucking rocked.
-
...I wont get into a discussion on the subjects of 'euthenasia' or 'liberal values' (though I hold strong opinions on both) with you as you areclearly 'mad as a tree'. Oh, and as you believe in 'God' I think you should check out Roland Emmerich's next classic, '10,000BC', as (according to your deeply held delusion) the Earth and all things were 'created' by 'Him' and 'Him' alone 5,000 years ago. Now run along - and try not to shoot any gynecologists/ evolutionists/ doctors/ free-thinkers while you're out there... you mad twerp..! Oh, and you can pass the crack pipe along.
-
What a crock. You might as well give up on all movies then...I guarantee someone prominent with every movie you like differs with you on some passionately held belief.
-
...about the new Bond movie. Who's doing the theme song, and will it be called "Casino Royale?" "Casino Royale" doesn't really lend itself to the usual Bond-type lyrics, does it? Anyway, I think it's about time Portishead got a shot.
-
...and, as any true Bond aficionado will tell you, the only reason Lazenby wasn't hired is because Brocolli was too tight-fisted to meet Lazenby's salary request of $1 million. I mean are you telling me that 'Diamonds Are Forever' wouldn't have been a better movie with Lazenby starring..? CRAP! The bloke was perfect in the role even if he was an Aussie and O.H.M.S.S. is the best Bond flick to date. It's the only one I can watch without cringing at some point (although From Russia With Love is also great mainly due to the presence of Bob Shaw). It won't be hard to top the '67 Casino Royale though will it..?
-
...a classic 1950's gentleman spy with a hip 60's twist. Hard to get a solid read on him, though, because he only made one film before quitting the franchise. Yes, contrary to popular myth, Lazenby quit and wasn't fired (the filmmakers offered him a long multi-picture deal as Bond). Lazenby was somehow convinced that the Bond films were about to fall out of popularity due to changing public tastes and hoped that doing just one film as the spy would be enough to launch him to permanent international fame. Didn't quite work out the way he hoped. Personally, I have always thought of Lazenby like that guy, Peter Best, who quit the Beatles just before they recorded their first album because he thought they'd hold him back and would never amount to anything.
-
Feb 27, 2006 2:32:21 PM CST
I hope this movie includes the scene from the novel...
by excaliburffolkes
...where Bond recalls the two murders he had to commit to originally obtain his double O license. I always thought it was one of the best passages Ian Fleming ever wrote, and that it explained volumes about Bond's character.
-
Nice call on the Portishead. Knowing the franchise, though, they'll probably go for something hip (like Gorillaz) or "British and popular" (like Coldplay). It was a big deal when they got a rock star on the level of Paul McCartney to do "Live and Let Die" (which also had a change in franchise actor); I wouldn't put it past them to try to do that again.
-
... in DR. NO. They shaved/waxed off everything below his chest, leaving his chest looking like it had giant caterpillars glued onto it. Horrid. And the story of "You Only Live Twice" required Bond to be waxed clean so he could pass as Japanese (yeah, right).
-
If you thought CRaig was channeling Bond during that movie then you don`t know what the Hell Bond is all about. Craig was a wimpy low-grade thug in it. If you want the perfect portrayal of modern Bond, watch "Sleep when I`m Dead" with Clive Owen.
-
...moondoggy. Connery was every bit as brutish as Craig and vice versa. They're cut from very similar cloth. Ask any woman who was old enough to ovulate when Connery was doing Bond and you'll find that many were attracted to his body, primarily, and didn't find him all that handsome in the face. In fact, most of them will tell you that Connery got better looking as he got older (not all that uncommon for men) and covered up more of his face with beard. Your concerns about Craig's looks are superficial and really without precedent. Did Dalton look like Moore? Did Brosnan look like either of them? Did any of them look like Connery? Relax. Wait until we get a clip of Craig getting his Bond on. If he swaggers into the room, leads every fight with his chin and knocks dames around as readily as he knocks back drinks, I think we have the heir apparent to Connery's legacy. As for the tooth thing, I hope they fixed those teeth and let him shoot the rest of the day without pain meds. I always thought one of Connery's greatest assets as Bond was that he seemed to be hiding a world of private pain behind that grimace of a grin he flashed at the ladies. I'm sure getting his teeth knocked out helped Craig get more into character. And who gives a happy fuck if he can't REALLY drive stick? It's a movie?
-
I mean,come on.How many millions do the Broccoli's deserve to make off this tired corpse of a character? If we keep going to these films, they'll keep making them. Anybody who's excited about this needs to watch Goldeneye again. I realize that's harsh punishment, but it's for your own good.
-
Craig/Bond looks great to me! The franchise is still alive for both men and women! Homoerotism implied.
-
The point is completely missed by those who argue that Brosnan is a better Bond than Moore, and Connery more than Lazenby etc. etc. in the same way it is completely missed by the abhorrent idea of "Let's do a retro Bond set in the 60's" etc. If you prefer Connery to Brosnan then go watch his films over Pierce's. If you want a retro Bond then grab one from the shelf. That is the absolute beauty of the Bond franchise beyond all other series of movies. The fact is that Bond is always completely OF HIS TIME! Whilst the character is a constant despite the relentless passage of time, standing reliably against an ever moving backdrop the portrayal of that character is always highly reflective of the period in which the character exists. Connery from the early and mid 60's with his thuggish brutality yet charm perfectly capturing Britains post-war mood both at home and abroad even though they were diametrically opposed to one another. Lazenby with easy charm but thumping right hook that the audiences wanted to believe symbolised where the Western world was in 1969. Moore with the combination of the frivolity of the late later 70's and then the "greed is good" materialism and yuppie era of the early 80's. Dalton back to the harder... yet somehow more sensitive late 80's with the rise of "new man" and AIDS scaring the world, against the backdrop of the uncertainty of the end of Communism and the demise of a sure-fire enemy. A reluctant and flawed hero sometimes, before such heroes had even become majorly desirable in big budget action films. Brosnan then re-launched the franchise with, to be fair, a great amalgamation of his predecessors yet with a great anger when required, and just enough cheekiness to counter it. A stuffed shirt secret agent in a time of Cool Britannia, globalisation and a rise in global knowledge and awareness never before seen.... and he pulls it off ! As for Daniel Craig. You will have to wait and see. What does the 21st century hold for us ? So far it is a climate of fear, crisis of confidence in our leaders but a real hope they will lead us out of it, a need for protection, a shadowy and mysterious enemy we don't understand, already in our midst. An uncertain world where sometimes bad things have to be done to protect what we see as good. We sometimes want to believe that out there, in the grey areas on the tacit edge of what we find acceptable there may be people such as 007 operating in ways that whilst may not be exactly palatable, they do at least serve to try and protect us. This is what Craigs Bond will be about, and when you think about it, isn't it quite close to the 60's Connery, cold war and retro Bond some of you yearn for ? This is all part of what makes this character great. Those of you that glibly ask "Are they still making these films (snigger)?" yes they are and yes they will continue to. And "Why is this character relevent?" etc. I hate to dissappoint you, he always has been and he always will be.
-
The films themselves are tailored towards the actor playing Bond. Look at From Russia With Love, could you see Moore going toe to toe with Robert Shaw? Could you picture Dalton floating in space in Moonraker? Could you picture Brosnan getting married in OHMSS?Each actor brought their own thing to Bond. Connery was a tough bastard who saved the world before getting some ass. Moore was a charming bastard that got some ass and then saved the world. Lazenby was a droll bastard who saved the world then got married. Dalton was a ruthless bastard who would rather beat the shit out of you than use some damn Q gadget and if he got some ass so be it. And Brosnan was a good blend of everyone who came before. If they are going the "novel" route they could take a page from Dalton in License to Kill, because that was probably the truest to the Bond of the novels in terms of temperment. (I personally love LTK and think it's the most underrated Bond). But if it's the same ol' nonsense that the last two Bonds have suffered through, then a bad Bond movie is still preferable to most crap that comes out of Hollywood anyway. My opinon on Craig as Bond? The same as my opinion on Routh as Superman: I'll judge for myself when I'm sitting in a theater with the lights out and a bag of popcorn in my hand. Until then, there's more important things to stress over...
-
You are spot on there. TLD was written for Moore but changed for Dalton. GE was written for Dalton straight after Licence to Kill, but then changed for Brosnan and historical upheavel. I agree on LTK as well. Launched in a summer of Batman and other mega juggernaughts, with little or no marketing support from MGM.... and it did something very different. If you watch it again now, it really stands up as a fine film. If you love talking about Bond, take a wander over to the Cinescape 007 forum. Much more chilled than many others on the web.
-
Isn't the first pic one of Costner from The Bodyguard and the other two from Waterworld?
-
I think you need to examine what really goes on when an actor gets a role that requires beefing up before making that assertion. Most actors that have had to beef up for a role, most recently bale for batman, speak of 5 hours a day of workouts more grueling than they thought were possible. If Bale can go from etheopian to brick shithouse in less than six months, I don't find Craig's transformation to shocking.
-
Having recently re-read several of the books, Daniel Craig seems miscast to me. And, if you get a chance, check out the funny story they had on all of Craig's "mishaps" on Showbiz Tonight (Headline News).
-
Is Craig actually looks like Bond does in the books but people complain he looks wrong. Connery and the others all looked less like the literary Bond than Craig. Bond is supposed to look like Flemming and Fleming was fair. Also Bond has an inately cruel look about him whilst not being ugly which is basically Craig. He could suck but realistically his look isn't the problem.
-
over a year later i post here !
-
With ogympr! Merry Christmas! )))
-
With raspos! Merry Christmas! )))
-
With ealtic! Merry Christmas! )))
-
With ify! Merry Christmas! )))
-
With blescr! Merry Christmas! )))
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 325 total posts 322 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 63 total posts 60 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 74 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 159 total posts 51 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 47 total posts 41 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 161 total posts 34 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 488 total posts 33 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 121 total posts 23 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 70 total posts 20 posts