Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Updated with Images!!! What A Surprise! Daniel Craig Is James Bond!!

FIRST? by DigitalDong	Oct 14th, 2005 06:37:57 AM
Um, whatever, Roger Moore still rules!!
Bond eh? YAWN by autobahnmessiah	Oct 14th, 2005 06:38:42 AM

00First by Barney Hood	Oct 14th, 2005 06:38:58 AM

Dang, close but not good enough... by Barney Hood	Oct 14th, 2005 06:40:12 AM
...Just like every Brosnan Bond movie
They still make Bond movies? by Pongo	Oct 14th, 2005 06:42:50 AM

Bond is Like... by RedFive	Oct 14th, 2005 06:48:36 AM
Chuck Norris,he's an old persons action hero.I Was personally hoping for Carrot Top,now that would be intresting.
President Evil by TheRealMoriarty	Oct 14th, 2005 06:49:24 AM
Who said it was a scoop? The press conference was this morning in London. We're just reporting that, yes, Sony finally confirmed it. We've been saying it was Craig since March. So get the sand out of your vagina, dude.
If you're going to start over, what better way to do it? by Red Grant	Oct 14th, 2005 06:51:50 AM
Than with a fresh take on the character AND with Fleming's first novel. I'm a fan of Pierce Brosnan's work in the series. He did a bang up job and is in my book, and is the second best man we've seen in the role behind only Sean Connery. But the reality is that he was almost TOO attractive to be believable. I often had a hard time seeing him playing it tough because he just filled out the Armani too well. And while he struck the crucial balance between edge and humor that we hadn't seen since Sir Sean, he could still tend to slip into the Moore camp a bit more than I'd like. Craig seems to have the chops to play the character more as Fleming wrote him. He may not be a pretty boy,but he's a damn good actor. And the acting makes a difference. As incredible as 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' is (it's my second favorite film of the entire series), if Connery sticks around for the role, there isn't any question that it's at the top of the heap. Lazenby did a great job stepping in to Connery's shoes, but OHMSS would have been SO perfect with the Scot in the lead. Moore never worked for me because he simply couldn't play the part as Fleming wrote it. OO7 is supposed to be one hard as nails son of a bitch with questionable ethics and a penchant for the drink and the ladies. Suave and smooth may be Moore, but it was never the true Bond. I'm ready to give Craig a fair shot. He's got the acting skills that the part needs, more so than Brosnan. And that's not meant to be a dig at Pierce. While I think Owen would have certainly been a smoother transition from Brosnan, I applaud the shear balls of this decision. EON has shown they're not afraid to take chances, which will likely lead to a lower box office but perhaps an even better Bond.
Why "Casino Royale" will suck as a franchise because of Barbara by KID AB	Oct 14th, 2005 06:53:34 AM
...Daniel Craig arrived at the press conference by speedboat. God almighty, there goes another franchise. Paul Harris and Martin Campbell better have full control on this film, otherwise it will be a full on cremation of Comander James Bond.
by Waff	Oct 14th, 2005 06:58:53 AM
Get the sand out of your vagina? That was witty. You keep that up and you may get the chance to write ON THE WEB! Wouldn't that be something? I think so.
I agree QTN by DigitalDong	Oct 14th, 2005 07:00:34 AM
I find the Bourne movies giving me that satisfaction the old Bond flicks did. Also what happened to all the cool villians? Seems the last 2 Bond flicks were missing any creativity in that department.
Sweetness & Perfection by John-Locke	Oct 14th, 2005 07:02:41 AM
Now to get a better director, let this guy do second unit like he's used too.
How about "take that glass rod out of your penis." by cookylamoo	Oct 14th, 2005 07:07:51 AM
At least it's a masculine insult.
Hey brobdingnag... by Red Grant	Oct 14th, 2005 07:19:07 AM
How about waiting for them to release the film (or even shoot one frame of it) before you dump all over it, eh sport? It must be such a sad little existence when your negativity extends beyond your co-workers on the taco assembly line and onto the intertron for us all to share in. what's even more pathetic is that you feel the need to ridicule not only those who merely make movies for a living, but your countrymen who are out there standing up for america's youth so you can continue to sit in front of your xbox, and waste that very thing.
Actually I like them taking it back to the 60's by Thirteen 13	Oct 14th, 2005 07:19:54 AM
That way I at least don't have to muscle my way through the boycotting "BUSH = HITLER!!!!!" crowd.
grrrrr by Flummage	Oct 14th, 2005 07:25:06 AM
animal noise here
dont care dont care dont care dont care dont care. by jig98	Oct 14th, 2005 07:33:14 AM

Regarding Craig... by dr_buggerlugs	Oct 14th, 2005 07:33:28 AM
...I think he's a fine actor and he'll make a damn fine Bond - my only dear is that amongst all the trumpeting of a new Bond, they'll just give us what we've seen for the last 20 odd years. This is the best chance they have of giving the audience something new, fresh and invigorating - but I fear they'll just give us something we've already seen. However, I can't imagine Craig signing on without seeing the script and being assured that the franchise is going to take a new slant. Well, let's start hoping people...
I hope to see some improvement by vikingkitty	Oct 14th, 2005 07:33:55 AM
The last few movies were so bad, it wouldn't have mattered if Pierce Brosnan, Sean Connery, or a retarded monkey had played Bond. No actor on earth could have saved those turkeys.
"Now that you're fucking Jude Laws ex.... by BitterMan23	Oct 14th, 2005 07:34:54 AM
...we feel you have the press-association worthy enough of the role. Welcome aboard"
...okay, so long as they dye his bleeding hair. by alucardvsdracula	Oct 14th, 2005 07:36:38 AM

Daniel Craig = Timothy Dalton II? by SpyGuy	Oct 14th, 2005 07:37:07 AM
While I'm encouraged with Martin Campbell at the helm (GOLDENEYE remains my favorite of the Brosnan films), Daniel Craig was a really bad call if you judge the general apathy over the announcement. And no, it's not because the Bond character is "irrelevant" -- spies are quite in style these days -- but because an actor with unremarkable presence has been cast in a franchise managed by clueless morons. I think Henry Cavill would have been the better pick of the two narrowed down, but as long as the producers give Craig some botox for his face and a decent hair transplant and dye job, CASINO ROYALE could do for him what THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS did for Timothy Dalton: Guarantee a second film that tanks and sends the franchise into a six-year hiatus.
Nothing against the Bourne films... by Red Grant	Oct 14th, 2005 07:37:37 AM
They're enjoyable and the realism is welcomed. As you mentioned QTN, Bond is an animal of a different color. I'll continue to enjoy both. And as they take OO7 off in a new direction, we could be looking at a return to the grittier edge of the Fleming novels, and the EARLY Connery films. Hell, even the two Dalton pictures presented a more intense OO7. In the post 9/11 world, I for one will still welcome a little Bond escapism where the good guy wins, thank you very much. And no offense to Bourne, but let's see if he can endure for another 40 years. Cheers.
Dalton was great by zacdilone	Oct 14th, 2005 07:40:04 AM
And tell me the Texas Hold-em thing was a joke.
License to Kill is my favorite Bond film. by Purple Rain	Oct 14th, 2005 07:43:36 AM
Dalton was awesome. Haven't cared for the Bond movies since that one anyway.
Blond, James Blond by ABVH	Oct 14th, 2005 07:44:11 AM
Not that I mind!!!I think it's cool to do something diferent after 40 years.
Mor, you guys really didn't call this one from March did you by TomPalpatine	Oct 14th, 2005 07:46:16 AM
I remember a new Bond rumor every week, so pretty much anyone that was cast could have been considered 'predicted' by that merit. Really I don't care, it's 7am and I'm about to start my first job out of college. Fuck me.
James Bond... James Bond by TomPalpatine	Oct 14th, 2005 07:46:57 AM
I love Da Ali G Show
You people are worse than girls... by TopHat	Oct 14th, 2005 07:50:44 AM
Although, some of you might be; "He's not good-looking enough," etc. Craig is PERFECT for Bond. Like I've stated in other posts, he's the closest to James in the novels than anyone else. He also has the acting chops. Hollywood has been casting him in plum supporting roles for a while now. Good job studio. Bravo Broccoli. Don't listen to these teenagers. Time for real men as leading men again. Especially for Bond. Paraphasing Martin Sheen's character on THE WEST WING; "He's ordering a weak martini, and he's being SNOOTY about it!"
The reason Dalton failed as Bond is not his fault by Thirteen 13	Oct 14th, 2005 07:55:07 AM
They attempted to retool the whole bond storyline. Monogamy, Political correctness, hardly any killings.....and then with Brosnan this got even worse. Casting Halle Berry in a Bond movie means the franchise is done. Time to start over...if that?!?!
They have nothing to lose at this point by 007-11	Oct 14th, 2005 08:06:31 AM
Reinvention isn't a bad thing. I'm willing to take a leap of faith with a new unconventional Bond. Who knows? Maybe since United Artists is no more you could finally coax Sean Connery into one of the movies.
by Hooky	Oct 14th, 2005 08:13:21 AM

Now we just need them to pick up on Tarantino's... by Hooky	Oct 14th, 2005 08:17:19 AM
...offer of directing the next Bond installment and this might just get interesting. I thought Craig was the best choice. He's got the acting talent, personality and charisma to pull it off. But, I think it'll depend more on the actual storytelling to make the Bond movies worth seeing.
Delighted by David Frames	Oct 14th, 2005 08:21:30 AM
Someone said Dalton 2, I say 'yes, and..?' After a decade of Brosnan the only way the Bond movies could become any more camp and fantastical is if you'd cast Pee Wee Herman in the role. Craig is an intelligent, solid choice. He's got the consitituent elements for a harder, nastier Bond. With Campbell directing we know the thing will have energy, with Pervis and Wade firmly on the backburner and Paul Haggis scribing you've got the potential for a descent screenplay and now we know that Bond will at least possess a bit of grit. BBC news today quoted Michael G.Wilson as saying they'd be no gadgets, no Q and no Moneypenny. Good. These are all positive soundings as far as I'm concerned. I'm not excited yet but today, after near total desalation after D.A.D I felt a pang of something for the first time in three years. It could have been hunger but I'd like to think it was hope.
Layer Cake by T-Pot25	Oct 14th, 2005 08:27:10 AM
I gotta say, I just finished watching Layer Cake, hoping the whole time that Craig would be confirmed as Bond soon so I could give a shit about that franchise again, and as soon as the DVD stops, I check AICN and behold, there is hope for 007.
We're being Punk'd right? by matthooper8	Oct 14th, 2005 08:30:18 AM
When will they announce the real Bond?
Dalton was a great Bond stuck in, what was at that time, a dwind by LeiaDown&FuckHer	Oct 14th, 2005 08:32:13 AM
Kind of like now, only without all the money. If Dalton actually had better films to do his thing in I honestly believed he would have carved himself quite a memorable niche in Bond filmic lore, but as it stood he's unfortunately labelled as a failed Bond, or, at best, a could-a-been, but wasn't...even though it was the films that pretty much failed him when it all comes down to it. As for Craig, the guy might be able to act, but he just seems utterly lacking in charisma, and to me, that is the key ingredient for any successful Bond.
For those who thing Craig is ugly by DannyOcean01	Oct 14th, 2005 08:32:31 AM
He schlepped Sienna Miller, one of the BEST looking women in the world (Fact)..unless you're some frat boy who believe women should come with plastic toxicity warnings. In fact, unless my trashy magazine rumour radar is way off, she said she loved him. And now we've got that ridiculous criticism out of the way, I haven't read the Fleming novels, but I'd like to think that alongside the 'ideal' suave man vision, he'd have written a realistic portrayal of MI5/6 operatives. Craig looks like a worn, and slightly weary, but totally badass operative. Go watch that TV adaptation of Archangel. He was great in that.
Daniel Craig? by hiperaktiv	Oct 14th, 2005 08:33:45 AM
Yawn.
And the crowd goes "meh." by mortsleam	Oct 14th, 2005 08:34:46 AM
Nothing against Daniel Craig. He was great in Road to Perdition and Layer Cake and that creepy movie where he slept with the old lady. But I think everyone is just sick of hearing about this, because they're sick of hearing about Bond period. Becuase they've fucked this property up so badly that they may as well cast Ice Cube and call it 007XxX. Craig's a good choice, but only if they throw out everything they've done to pussify this series, (everything Brosnan was complaining about, by the way) and start over a la Batman Begins.
I'm soooo sick of remakes. by Andsoitis	Oct 14th, 2005 08:40:53 AM
Peter Sellers is rolling in his grave. Alright, but this actually pleases me. Clive Owen said no, so no he can act in movies, and not be tied down to Bond for 5+ years. Too bad for Craig though. I hope he makes a lot of money from this.
Mori - they should definitely go for Texas Hold 'em over Bac by Zino	Oct 14th, 2005 08:42:09 AM
...It is a far superior game, with a huge skill element (as opposed to Baccarat which is a pure luck game). They don't call it the Cadillac of poker for nothin', baby. Now please don't wish any more nasty sexual diseases on me.
Dalton is a little cross-eyed. by rev_skarekroe	Oct 14th, 2005 08:48:35 AM
Just like Juliette Lewis and Lucy Liu. And that's why none of them should play Bond.
And about Bond... by Zino	Oct 14th, 2005 08:51:23 AM
...I was a bit dismayed at the shortlist of Craig and Owen (maybe you had to have a first name as your surname to qualify). Craig was terrible in Layer Cake - no charm, charisma or personality. And Owen was probably the worst thing about King Arthur, and that's saying something. Having said that I hope he does well. But I doubt Pearce can be bettered...
As a red bloodied female, all I can say is Craig has 'got it by Jugs	Oct 14th, 2005 08:54:11 AM
..deal with it you jealous bastards!!!! That is all Bond needs...please don't tell me you were hoping for a 'real' actor?
An interesting picture by dr_buggerlugs	Oct 14th, 2005 08:57:30 AM
http://www.sonypictures.com/mo vies/casinoroyale/pr/craig_bon d.jpg - I have no idea if this is an official pic or some photoshop jobbie but if it's on the official site, then it's a good indicator of whats to come.
Uhm well... by moviemaniac-7	Oct 14th, 2005 09:04:24 AM
Make the movie and I'll tell you if it's a good Bond. Still, I think a decent script is more important that whoever plays the 00-agent.
Casino Royale has been made twice by wolverines claw	Oct 14th, 2005 09:08:27 AM
the first time was as a live tv broadcast: http://tinyurl.com/d8cvu
I'm pleased. by DocPazuzu	Oct 14th, 2005 09:09:18 AM
Craig already has that ice-cold killer look going for him. I've liked him in pretty much everything I've seen him in so far. If there's anything I'm slightly apprehensive of, it's how he's going to pull off the suave charisma the character is expected to have. I haven't really seen him do that yet, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. As long as the fundamental ice-cold killer is there, the rest can be worked on. Clive Owen would have been much too dull, I fear.
Fuck them, they should have kept Brosnan. by I Dunno	Oct 14th, 2005 09:11:49 AM
This guy sucks. Bond is dead to me now.
British heroes are all facists by cookylamoo	Oct 14th, 2005 09:27:23 AM
James Bond, Judge Dredd, Modesty Blaze. They're there to preserve the status quo, taking out the crazies who dare express their own personal vision. Someone should make a movie of James Bond: Serpent's Tooth by Doug Meonch and Paul Gulacy. It's as close to Bond as you can get. A great series. It even has a raptor in it. Also, didn't Moneypenny eventually manage to bed Bond in one of the later novels?
i agree. Craig will be great, but Campbell is an extremely borin by mansep	Oct 14th, 2005 09:49:16 AM
Campbell's forgotten how to create tension in his films. GoldenEye now seems incredibly slow and tedious... and in his more recent films he's been neither fresh nor exciting... he's obviously professional, but the Bond franchise badly needs an injection of true Fleming style and energy, and Campbell wont be able to prvide that. ... Edge of Darkness was awesome, but again, very slow (but then that was the 80s)
Craig Is Cool, But Owen Woulda Been A Grandslam Homerun of Hands by ZombieSolutions	Oct 14th, 2005 09:50:16 AM
alas, he -- like Patrick McGoohan before him -- turned it down. Jude Law would be a bad Bond, but he'd be a GREAT Bond villian. he'd also make a great Deslock if Bowie isn't availble...
About Fucking Time by RaylanGivens	Oct 14th, 2005 09:50:47 AM
Yeah, with the Broccolis on board, the plot and structure will be more of the same usual Bond formula, but I love that Craig got it. Dude rocks. What they need to do now is make Sienna Miller the Bond girl for this one. Preferably the Bad Bond Girl...
OH NO 7!!! by Master Bruce	Oct 14th, 2005 09:51:45 AM
I'm all for a return to the more realistic approach to Bond ala early Connery, Lazenby or Dalton, however, history has proven that this never plays well w/the general audience only the Bond purists. The other historical fact is that following a hugely successful actor in the role never works out either, just ask George Lazenby or Timothy Dalton. Let's hope that w/the talent involved this will really be a case of "Bond is back and he's better than ever!"
oh... and Bond would NEVER play texas hold'em... by mansep	Oct 14th, 2005 09:53:07 AM
the producers need to get real.
Vladimir Putin is 007... by Lou Stools	Oct 14th, 2005 09:56:13 AM
Wienie, I tell you! It's like having the chess-playing baddie in FRWL (Kronstein-sp?) being Bond.
Hey Harry and/or Moriarty... by RaylanGivens	Oct 14th, 2005 09:57:36 AM
Where did the picture of Craig-in-Tux come from? I haven't seen that anywhere else yet. Give me a black box response and make my day.
Continuity questions by Philaspenser	Oct 14th, 2005 09:57:40 AM
Not to be a geeky continuity maven, but they're unfortunately going to have to drop John Cleese as "Q" for the film to make any sense. It was clearly established in the last couple of films, after all, that Cleese's "Q" was the apprentice, and later successor, of the original "Q", and that Cleese's "Q" met a well-established and long-in-service 007 for the first time in "The World Is Not Enough". So we can't have his Q suddenly meet a freshly-minted 007 for the first time in "Casino Royale". Actually, this observation also applies to Judi Dench's "M", too, though things can possibly be overlooked here if the producers make the case that she was always "M". That wouldn't be an easy argument to make, though, either.
Re: Continuity by Darth Busey	Oct 14th, 2005 10:01:59 AM
Continuity in Bond films has never been very strict. I don't believe that Judi Dench is supposed to be the same character that Bernard Lee played for so many years. Yes, they hold the same position, but they are not the same person. FWIW, this is a great opportunity to completely reboot the franchise, but after Casino Royale, they should NOT start re-making the Fleming books. That would be a bad idea at this point in time, IMO.
Re: Raylan by Darth Busey	Oct 14th, 2005 10:02:49 AM
Its posted on Sony's site, so it is "official"... http://www.sonypictures.com/mo vies/casinoroyale/pr/craig_bon d.jpg
What's with all the Martin Campbell hate? by Osmosis Jones	Oct 14th, 2005 10:04:54 AM
"Represents the worst of the Brosnan franchise"? Campbell's Goldeneye was the only Brosnan 007 flick to have even a modicum of visual style (helped by superior miniature work by the late Bond vet Derek Meddings), and The Mask Of Zorro was one of the best action flicks of the late 90's. If you want to talk about the worst of the Brosnan era, check out Lee Tamahori's ghastly, "hip" editing techniques on Die Another Day.
Darth Busey by RaylanGivens	Oct 14th, 2005 10:05:08 AM
Thanks... love your User ID BTW.
Jonathan Glazer for the next one. by Christopher3	Oct 14th, 2005 10:05:46 AM
Hubbout it?
I agree, Busey by Philaspenser	Oct 14th, 2005 10:08:33 AM
Yep, you're right, Busey: Dench's "M" was clearly established as the successor of the original M, so we can't have HER meet a younger 007 for the first time, either. I was just saying that the producers could ignore the fact that she's a NEWER M if they want to have her in the movie and meeting Bond for the first time. As you said, continuity was never religiously observed in these films.
Craid is perfect. Don't listen to the naysayers Studio/Produ by TopHat	Oct 14th, 2005 10:09:48 AM
To busy sitting at home or at their jobs imagining how great a movie would have been if THEY had directed and cast it. These people don't know anything. They've obviously never read the books. DON'T LISTEN TO ANYONE ABOUT THIS PROJECT WHO HASN'T READ THE BOOKS. Craig is perfect. Deal with it. Lets move on to something MUCH more interesting: Who would be the perfect Vesper Lynn?
No Bond, Please. We're British. by Gorrister	Oct 14th, 2005 10:14:23 AM
Although I love the Bond series, James Bond is dead. He's a product of the Cold War and should remain in the 20th Century were he shined like a star. These days, Bond has not only been done to death, but he's been copied, modified and updated in various other similar-genre films. If they want to update the series, then have Bond become the new M and revamp the series from there with new heroes and villians. (Good Lord, how many times did James Bond copy the same old story of "Megalomanic uses orbital weapon to bring chaos to Earth"? Lets see...there was "Diamonds are Forever", "You Only Live Twice", "Moonraker", "Goldeneye", "Die Another Day".....did I miss any?
Craig is not ugly... by Batutta	Oct 14th, 2005 10:21:29 AM
...but he's no super stud either. Sure, he might clean up nice, but the real Bond would look like a stud flipping burgers at McDonald's. Nope. I think they messed up here. And Martin Campbell is lame. You need a fresh director from the independant film scene to infuse these movies with new life, like what Doug Liman did for Bourne, or Chris Nolan did for Batman. They missed the boat big time by stiffing QT and went with the most boring choice possible.
You guys are high. Martin Campbell kicks ass! by kdraines	Oct 14th, 2005 10:24:56 AM
Goldeneye is the ONLY decent Brosnan Bond made. The others are full of random action and zero character, plot, story, tension, interest, etc. You know, all the things that make a movie GOOD. And The Mask of Zorro was the best adventure movie to come down the pipe since Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. While I'll admit any good action director can fall on his/her face (John McTiernan, Kathryn Bigelow), I'll hold onto my hopes until Legend of Zorro bows at the end of the month.
so, by silverdog	Oct 14th, 2005 10:33:04 AM

If you want to lock your brain into a catatonic loop by Bill Fairbanks	Oct 14th, 2005 10:41:15 AM
just close your eyes and try to work out how the Faberge eggs fit into the Octopussy plot. It starts to hurt after a while. While you watch it the hypnotic aeura of Roger Moore's eyebrows make you think they play an important role in a plot to trigger WW3. It's only later that they start to keep you awake at night. My marriage suffered terribly due to this.
Martin Campbell stands a chance if . . . by Rhett Butler	Oct 14th, 2005 10:41:23 AM
He brings the finished cut in at under 90 minutes - even his 'best' films have a flabby third act. Also - The producers have got to get a serious grip on the 007 media output and intent - Daniel Craig looks the same age as Brosnan - not younger. Don't set out an agenda then break with it.
New Bond movie by wessmith1966	Oct 14th, 2005 10:45:44 AM
The film should start out with Sean Connery as Bond looking back on his career and fade into Casino Royale with an all new cast and Craig as Bond. I think that would a nice way to reboot the series and still tie it into the old Bond for longtime fans. What do you think?
Cast Sean Connery as M, dammit! by kdraines	Oct 14th, 2005 10:53:05 AM
I would love that! I've always thought it would be cool to have James Bond take over M's role and have another character fill the position of 007, with Sean Connery as Bond/M.
Damn this is old fucking news by JCubedz	Oct 14th, 2005 11:13:55 AM
By god ESPN reported this TWO days ago. Way to get out scooped by a sports news station lol.
ANTHONY HOPKINS AS "M"!!! by Master Bruce	Oct 14th, 2005 11:22:36 AM
Search your feelings, you know it to be true! I thought Sir Tony should've been cast as M back in Goldeneye, now w/ Campbell directing, maybe he can persuade his former Zorro star to play the role at last. Hell, MI2 was practically a dry run for the part & I'd much rather see him as Bond's boss than Crusie's any day. It's just a question of MGM ponying up the big $$$. Superman's loss can be Bond's gain.
Maybe I have "Rome" on the brain... by Darth Busey	Oct 14th, 2005 11:46:42 AM
but how about Indira Varma as Vesper Lynn?
Blonde Bond by Uncapie	Oct 14th, 2005 11:48:39 AM
The news groups were commenting that this is the first blonde Bond. Not true. It was Roger Moore.
by Charlie_Brown	Oct 14th, 2005 11:51:21 AM

Great comment, Charlie Brown! by TheHappyRampager	Oct 14th, 2005 12:03:56 PM
Even better than mine!
actually its NOT old news, seeing as it was officially announced by satansteve	Oct 14th, 2005 12:04:52 PM
so all you 'oh we knew a year ago before the producers even did' can all go fuck yourselves. and plus, i havent seen daniel craigs movies, but he sure looks like the ugliest bond ever. but i have faith that theyve made the right choice.
It worked for the Batman Franchise. by Charlie_Brown	Oct 14th, 2005 12:06:08 PM
I think they should just pretend all the movies after Sean didn't happen. The franchise can be great again. BTW. The Boomers are not hippies anymore. They protested the war when it was their asses going to VN. They lobbied for education grants and welfare when they were poor students. NOW that they are in their peak earning years, they are busy cutting taxes and scaling back on benifits for students and the needy.AND you can fucking bet that when they retire they will insist on getting every GD penny of their Social Security/Medicare benefits. I hate the "Me" generation.
The worst thing ive read here,I honestly doubt Harry has read a by The True Priapic	Oct 14th, 2005 12:08:46 PM
Get Matthew Vaughn?Are you fucking serious?This guy is ugly and scary looking.Layer Cake is awful,and so-called star Sienna Miller is an absolute joke.Fuckable does nmot equal talent.Go read a Bond novel and come back and talk.....my ass,you've read Casino....This guy is a terrible idea.I'd try an unknown.Bond films have beFrotten shite since....well....aw,fuck it who cares..Sith is on the dvd here in china and its fucking terrible.what a piece of crap.
Jason Bourne OWNS James Bond's ass!!! by mattw	Oct 14th, 2005 12:10:04 PM
Wait, sorry, what I meant to say was, "Who gives a rats ass?" I'm going outside. I recoomend you all do the same.
I meant "recommend". by mattw	Oct 14th, 2005 12:11:07 PM
Whatever.
Daniel Craig may make a cool Bond, but the real problem is the s by Orbots Commander	Oct 14th, 2005 12:11:43 PM
I can bet you anything that the villain will be another wacky billionaire with fantasies of world domination using as a weapon some kind of space laser or a computer virus on a disk---something lame like that. You wanna know what the new Bond movie will be like? Go rent that Val Kilmer lame-ass Saint movie. The new Bond SHOULD be more like DePalma's Mission Impossible. In fact, SONY studio bigwigs, why not get Brian Depalma to direct your new Bond flick?
Another thing: if the producers and writer want to make James Bo by Orbots Commander	Oct 14th, 2005 12:20:51 PM
On the movie after Casino Royale, have Bond spying in Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Maybe he could then jet over to Kashmir and try to prevent a nuclear war between Pakistan and India, secretly plotted by Kashmiri seperatists.
The 'Cheap', Not 'Edgy' Bond by abcdefghijklmnop	Oct 14th, 2005 12:24:38 PM
EON are trying to play the 'Fleming card', but I don't buy it anymore. Do they think we've forgotten that they are still the same people who gave us DAD, and wanted to give Halle Berry her own film? The bottom line is that they were too stubborn to invite Brosnan back, so they went with someone who would do 3 films for less than Brosnan's one. Any hope for a truly edgy Bond film went out the door the minute they decided to jump on the Texas Hold `Em bandwagon. Supposedly, they are already working on Bond 22, but how can they do that when they don't know what popular thing they will try to copy from 2006 yet?
Excuse me. Could I borrow a match? by Gus Nukem	Oct 14th, 2005 12:28:52 PM

This wasn't supposed to be a scoop by Greased Deaf Guy	Oct 14th, 2005 12:31:56 PM
This site did away with scoops years ago so why is anyone surprised? And they did call this in March and then every other rumor but that's only after every other site posted it first.
harry, pull your head outta your ass. by roachy	Oct 14th, 2005 12:37:55 PM
this is the martin campbell that made goldenEye. easily in the top 5 great bond movies. with possibly the best action scenes out of all 20!! the dam opening! the tank chase!! the xenia fights!!! the final fist fight [more brutal and realistic than any bourne fight]. and as far as early word on legend of zorro being bad, lets judge the movie when we see it for ourselves. i admit the trailers make it look awful but then ive seen some great looking trailers for movies thats were utter crap! [van helsing, matrix 2 & 3, troy, the avengers, riddick, etc] and if campbell could make mask of zorro the classic it is then i have full faith in him doing it again.
Campbell is boring? by David Frames	Oct 14th, 2005 12:41:00 PM
For Fucks Sake get serious. Goldeneye's script was a load of all shit but the bastard MOVED. Campbell might not be heavyweight per say the man = pace, energy and movement and thats ok with me. If they get the script right we could be in for a treat here.
It's not a matter of being ugly.... by matthooper8	Oct 14th, 2005 12:41:04 PM
Only a woman or gay man would look at a man as ugly or handsome. It's just a matter of NOT being 007.
there is something I odd I have noticed. by emeraldboy	Oct 14th, 2005 12:49:27 PM
First of all congrats to Danny craig. They said they are going to make bond a darker character, brooding character which is all very interesting however. after saying it is going back to the books, which i suppose is a good thing but It is going to have 12a cert. So this is bond is going to be one for the kids. Hmmmmm, since when was bond for the kids. I thought this was for adults. Mayabe I am missing something. Bond should be left to die. if this one fails.
Can we please get a SPY movie instead of another SCHWARZENNGER m by all	Oct 14th, 2005 12:51:20 PM
The producers should go back and watch From Russia with Love 12 times and then get to work
So Bond is now a ginger twat? Wave goodbye to the franchise. by AlexMaui2	Oct 14th, 2005 12:51:41 PM
Bunch of idiot producers.
Cause It's all so fvckin' hysterical.... by GrandMuffTarkin	Oct 14th, 2005 12:52:38 PM
Those pics look pretty decent. Oh, and I liked it better when the writers here on AICN didn't choose to respond to us riffraff, you're breaking the illusion that you're better than us.
Craig does not have the "IT" factor. He's the next Timothy D by Ted Striker	Oct 14th, 2005 01:07:51 PM
Believe me - this is not going to work, at all. What a lame, lame choice. Mr Craig is not ver suave like Bond - he can't score the chicks, like Bond does. He's more of a hit-man bad-ass type, rather than a charming pompous wise-cracking secret agent. Hmmmm, best of luck to the franchise, bt I think Timothy Dalton....er, I mean, Daniel Craig has an uphill battle.
Two Things... by RaylanGivens	Oct 14th, 2005 01:09:27 PM
I agree with Roachy about Campbell's chase scenes in GOLDENEYE, and definitely that the final fist fight with Trevalyan rocked. His Bond seemed a hell of a lot more hands on than the previous versions (except Sean, who enjoyed smacking the ladies around). And did somebody shit in The True Priapic's Wheaties this morning? Damn, dude, I think you need a hug.
Wow, Yeah, Congrats To the New Bond. Now, Serviously, STOP MAKI by www.valiens.com	Oct 14th, 2005 01:10:08 PM
They range from good to terrible, heavy ont he terrible. Are any classics? I mean legit classics beyond the Bond fanatic telling me they're all classics? Why not just have Robert Englund play Bond? Maybe he can go after Jason that way.
Oh so many... by frankenchr1st	Oct 14th, 2005 01:13:44 PM
insecure BOYS in here, it makes me giggle. I bet you're all very good-looking - in your own minds. That's why you're not allowed outta your parents basement. He's better looking than you'll ever be. Just be a man and own up to it. Oh, sorry, you're not men are you, little boys... He'll be just fine, if the script is ANY good that is.
"Why are you laughing?" "Because I find it's all so fucking by Riccardogogo	Oct 14th, 2005 01:16:47 PM
That's a round about quote from Daniel Craig's character in the, terrible, Road to Perdition. Kind of sums up how I feel about this bit of casting. He's a good actor, but he isn't Bond. Unless you think Bond should resemble Boris Becker!
Well, at least there's hope by Hobbs	Oct 14th, 2005 01:16:50 PM
With the exception of Connery-to-Lazenby, this franchise tends to change substanstially every time a new actor dons the tux. I don't know if that's good news or bad, but at least there's reason for hope. Hopefully, it's change for the better.
Here I was thinking they were going for a younger Bond. by zerogundamx	Oct 14th, 2005 01:23:22 PM
This guy leaves a terrible taste.
Dalton was awesome...he has a bigger following than you'd th by Aston Lad	Oct 14th, 2005 01:24:59 PM
All Bond actors had their plus points. Connery was the most macho. Lazenby was a novelty, but not a bad one. Moore was charming in the seventies (but kept the part for 2 films too long). Dalton was believeable and likeable. Brosnan was the most handsome. Never seen Daniel Craig in anything before so will reserve judgement on his prospects till I watch layer cake sometime.
Just reread what I wrote... by Hobbs	Oct 14th, 2005 01:28:22 PM
...and realized I ought to clarify before people go nuts thinking I'm comparing Lazenby to Connery. Lazenby did an admirable job, but when I refer to changes, I'm not just talking about simply the Bond character, but the overall tenor of the films. It's hard to make that assertion with Lazenby because he was only in one film hence the exception. But Connery Bond films, Moore Bond films, even the brief Dalton years, and the Brosnan Bond films are distinct in style and tone. My hope is that with a new actor we'll get a new shift in the franchise for the better.
RE: Darth Busey by Aston Lad	Oct 14th, 2005 01:31:59 PM
I see what you mean, but I don't think Judi Dench was ever supposed to be the 'same' M as Bernard Lee. I think her first scene in Goldeneye was setting up the idea that M is a post, not a person, and she is the latest person to fill it. Nor, I suspect, was it done for purely political correctness. The real head of MI6 in the 1990s was a woman and I think the series was trying to reflect that.
by Hobbs	Oct 14th, 2005 01:37:08 PM
What's odd is not so much the M & Q roles, but that of Felix Leiter, the American CIA operative. Weren't there some continuity problems with his pigmentation?
No problem with Craige, its the reboot idea by Gungan Slayer	Oct 14th, 2005 01:40:33 PM
Screw this reboot shit. You dont just do that to a 20 film, 40 year old franchise. You can successfully relaunch the franchise without having to give us stupid reboot/first mission/bond begins/prequel crap. I dont have a problem with Craige. Its this stupid idea. And Campbell and Haggis that wont shut the hell up about. Oh yeah, and Purvis and Wade. ERGH
Harry, wrong on two counts by Bart of Darkness	Oct 14th, 2005 01:42:27 PM
First, Martin Cambell directed one of the best Bonds in 20 years (you know, the one that reinvigorated a moribund franchise). Secondly, Brosnan should have been allowed to return rather than re-casting the part. It makes me sick to see you ass kissing this new guy just because he's new. Let's see how he does in the part before creaming your pants in homoerotic appreciation.
Martin Campbell Rocks by Saluki	Oct 14th, 2005 01:51:54 PM
Goldeneye & Zorro were big surprises for me, and they both hold up amazingly well. Once he was announced, I knew it would be smooth sailing from there. I can see Craig playing the Flemming Bond, but can audiences? Dalton's problem was that he wasn't in Flemming tales. Craig got lucky on that count. Most of my friends agree, this was their second choice behind Clive Owen, and Craig and is more than able to play the role of a spy. The question now is if he can woo the women, and avoid the terrible dialogue from the past.
Who gives a fuck by Wyrdy the Gerbil	Oct 14th, 2005 01:53:48 PM
I just cant find it in me to care who playe Bond.......
Martin Campbell... oh yeah, THERE'S talent... by FiendishMilt37	Oct 14th, 2005 02:16:10 PM
Which part of VERTICAL LIMIT and BEYOND BORDERS did you think reflected genius? Oh wait, nobody ever saw those piles of turdburgers because they were akin to something you might extract from a elephant's colon with a plunger. And ANYONE who thinks GOLDENEYE is one of the "like top 5 Bond movies ever!!!" seriously needs to pull their head out of their own ass. Nothing but cliche after cliche after cliche...
Casino Royal Alert Alert Alert by Roborob	Oct 14th, 2005 02:37:03 PM
Now I have a personal sense of alarm that goes off when I hear news about upcoming movies that troubles me. Third Stage has been reached I fully expect Casino Royal to collect a Golden Rasberrry and sink Bond for years to come. 1. 21 Rewrites of the Script. 2. NO Pierce Brosnan, The Film Companies choice. 3. No Q scene. Why make a non Bond Bond Film, If I wanted that I'd watch one of the XXX or Borne films. NO I am sorry but I expect this to be a turkey. You have been warned.
The verdicts out until we see some test footage... by Hail	Oct 14th, 2005 02:41:25 PM
Campbell brings to the table a look that fits into standard Hollywood's liking. Nothing groundbreaking, but nothing incredibly dull either (a bad match if you ask me. It all equals mediocre). The only redeeming quality will be how Haggis handles everything. Between him and Craig being involved in this movie it gives me a shred of hope that this could be different. But everything else screams standard Bond flair. We'll see...
AICN sucking it's own dick again by barryap	Oct 14th, 2005 02:49:00 PM
Way to fellate yourself over a rumor you got right. Now how about a "corrections" column for all the shit you make up?
00-Boring...how about an Alias movie? by Capt. Murphy	Oct 14th, 2005 02:53:27 PM
How many times can you shoot acid from your watch and turn your car into a submarine before it gets old for people? First 1.5 seasons of Alias owned anything I've ever seen in a Bond movie, 'nuff said.
by Evil Chicken	Oct 14th, 2005 02:56:47 PM
Amen.
Daniel Craig is an excellent choice - just watch ETERNAL LOVE a by Spacesheik	Oct 14th, 2005 02:59:33 PM
im very happy about this news -- hes lean, mean and moody -- Craig will rock in this role, bringing an edge and unpredictability
It's set in the 60s? by Fitzcarraldo2	Oct 14th, 2005 03:00:39 PM
If Casino Raoyale is set 40 years ago that's an excellent decision. I agree Martin Campbell is a dull choice as director. Vaughan, Guy Ritchie or Quentin Tatantino would have been sensational. Sean Bean would have been a good 007 if he hadn't played 006, I could picture him killing his grandmother for a laugh.
I would have rather seen this guy-- by Batutta	Oct 14th, 2005 03:05:30 PM
http://photos1.blogger.com/blo gger/1220/1727/1600/davelyons1 .jpg
You gotta be shittin me! by droids22	Oct 14th, 2005 03:34:45 PM
Daniel Craig? OMG! If you owned this franchise who would you rather have Daniel Craig or Hugh Jackman? These movies are not gonna make any money. I think Daniel got it only because Hugh turned it down.
Craig is the next Timothy Dalton by lynxpro	Oct 14th, 2005 03:57:54 PM
Say what you will, Harry & Co., but the public did not want Craig (who?) as Bond. They wanted Brosnan, at least for one more pic. Brosnan gets a lot of h8 online, but the films he's been in were not bad because of him. That is Eon's fault. Brosnan has wanted to gritty them up ever since GoldenEye. He's the one that wanted to do Casino Royale with Tarantino in the director's chair. Eon said no. So now Eon is going to save the Bond franchise from itself? No. They stunt casted this because Layer Cake is overhyped online. Craig is good, but he is not Bond material. Mark my words, Craig will be Bond for ONE film. It will tank and then we'll either have Brosnan back to try to win back fans quickly, or Sony will throw a giant sack of cash to Julian McMahon to get him into the role. But for now, to Joe Public, Brosnan is still Bond. And for all you knucklehead fanbois declaring your love for the Bourne films, you are no better than the rabid Browncoats, except you apparently spend your money at the box office more than the Whedonites who sit around posting online. Or on the otherhand, most of the people who went to check out the Bourne films were women who were mainly Matt (I have a forehead almost as big as VanDamme) Damon fans...whereas the Browncoats are solitary basement dwellers. The Bourne films are overrated. Suck it.
continuing... by lynxpro	Oct 14th, 2005 04:03:02 PM
Daniel Craig as 007 is going to be as successful as Brandon Routh as Superman. One picture each. Although Craig is a talented actor, and Routh is a failed soap opera non-star. I nominate Barbara Broccoli AND Brett Ratner to be tarred, feathered, and chased out of Hollywood as soon as possible. Throw Jon Peters in there as well and whoever at the WB that agreed with the Routh decision.
Bond's First by abcdefghijklmnop	Oct 14th, 2005 04:12:53 PM
The first mission idea is lame and unnecessary. No one cares how Bond became Bond, because it's just not interesting. It's exactly what Jon Favreau was talking about with the John Carter film. The less exposition the better. And Craig will likely be the next Dalton. The average filmgoer doesn't care about the books, they only care if it's an actor they're comfortable with in the role. Try watching a random Bond film with some friends, and you're pretty much guaranteed to hear, "Oh, I don't like that James Bond."
DannyOcean01 by lynxpro	Oct 14th, 2005 04:15:10 PM
Big deal. I've done plenty yet I know I'm not cut out for the Bond role. So doing Sienna Miller is not impressive to me. Eddie Fisher got Liz Taylor back in the day. Wot u got 2 say bout that? I don't like Julia Roberts but Lyle Lovett? How about Vincent Cassel with Monica Bellucci? Explain that? You can't, unless its the "Ron Jeremy argument". So the Sienna flat-as-a-board Miller argument is null & void in terms of qualifying Craig for the role.
Continuity?! by eg4190	Oct 14th, 2005 05:13:47 PM
We're talking about a character who's been between his late 30's and early 50's for over 40 years! This is particularly a problem because every Bond film to date has taken place in the present. If he was 50 in 2003, then he was 10 when the events of Dr. No happened. The only explanation is that Bond exists in an eternal present, just like The Simpsons. It therefore stands to reason that with each new Bond, his backstory is magically updated to match the present times. Kind of like how they once depicted Bart as being born in the early 80's, but now they have to make mid-90's jokes in newer flashback episodes. If you've hung with the series this long, then I don't see why anyone would have a problem with John Cleese or Judi Dench as Q and M, respectively.
Continuity?! by eg4190	Oct 14th, 2005 05:13:47 PM
We're talking about a character who's been between his late 30's and early 50's for over 40 years! This is particularly a problem because every Bond film to date has taken place in the present. If he was 50 in 2003, then he was 10 when the events of Dr. No happened. The only explanation is that Bond exists in an eternal present, just like The Simpsons. It therefore stands to reason that with each new Bond, his backstory is magically updated to match the present times. Kind of like how they once depicted Bart as being born in the early 80's, but now they have to make mid-90's jokes in newer flashback episodes. If you've hung with the series this long, then I don't see why anyone would have a problem with John Cleese or Judi Dench as Q and M, respectively.
Yes, he DOES look like a mean, motherfucking killer... by RobinP	Oct 14th, 2005 05:27:29 PM
but I remain to be convinced. So, to Barbara Broccoli, I say ...convince me, Babs. Make up for the fact that your family is tied up to the most repugnant vegetable ever to find it's way on to my plate. I mean it's not even food, for Christ's sake - it's a cruel and inhuman punishment. Thank you and good night from RobinP - NOT a broccoli fan. (And WHY is it so fucking GREEN ?)
by roachy	Oct 14th, 2005 05:51:12 PM
RE: FiendishMilt37 . at what point in my message did i say genius??? but fact is Martin Campbell completely regenerated a dying[if not dead] franchise, introduced us to a superb new bond and made it the highest grossing bond movie at the time to boot. then he did the exact same for zorro, so there's no reason why he cant do it again. virtical limit and beyond borders??? who gives a damn what other movies he's made. spielberg made hook and the lost world, de palma made femme fatale and snake eyes,coppola made jack!! all directors have their misfires. even the greats. you thought goldeneye was nothing but "cliche after cliche", then what the hell are you doing watching bond movies to begin with????? cliches are what make bond movies bond movies. its how those cliches are pulled off that determines how successful they are.
Bond out of date? No, just the enemies by ACB!	Oct 14th, 2005 05:59:01 PM
The whole concept of Bond, secret agent operating in the world, is not an out of date concept as everyone tries to make it seem(and people still are interested in Bond, thats why the last 4 have made nearly a billion dollars world wide). What the Bond franchise really needs are an injection of real villians. We need someone to hate that we actual can relate to in a degree, either through their motivation or through actual existence within our world. Now would be the time to bring a film hero into direct conflict with the major issue in the world today: TERRORISM. Why not have Bond deal with this new threat the same way he dealt with communism when it was an issue in its time. Confront it head on and risk his own life to be the last man standing when the dust settles. Better yet, perhaps have a villian that uses the mind state of a world in fear of terrorist actions to their own advantage, a form of misdirection of governments to guise their real agendas. The threats need to be something that we can relate to as an audience today. We do not need another version of a bad rich man who takes a satillete and does bad things with it. It's time to get Bond dirty.
Ladies and gentlemen... by Cappybeara	Oct 14th, 2005 06:13:47 PM
We have our new George Lazenby!
RobinP by Kirk's Toupee	Oct 14th, 2005 06:15:53 PM
2 swears in one talkback?....for shame. And I thought your were better than that. Oh yeah and this is a shitty choice.
Remember How It Felt... by muddyfunster	Oct 14th, 2005 06:19:50 PM
in 1995, after six years with no Bond, the memory of the disappointing 'Licence To Kill' now fading, sitting in the cinema and waiting for Goldeneye to begin. When Bond zoomed over that cliff edge and skydived into the plane to escape the Ruskies the whole cinema erupted in spontaneous applause, the titles kicked in and Bond was back !! If Campbell can pull that off again with another new Bond then I want a front row seat.
3 reasons why this WILL be the best Bond film in 30 years. by R.C. the "Wise"	Oct 14th, 2005 06:25:39 PM
1. Daniel Craig. Not everyone's, hell, anyone's original embodiment of 007 but he's a terrific actor with enough "IT Factor" to pull some rabbits out this franchise's hat. 2. The script. The writer of Million Dollar Baby and Crash is handling the Screenplay adaptation. What more can you want. This guy's an Oscar caliber writer. That alone would get my $15 (That's how much it will cost to see an evening showing of this flick by next Nov.). 3. Cambell directing. Now Harry has some points but to Cambell's defense, we've never seen him direct a film with anything close to the caliber script he will be receiving. Besides, GoldenEye was still the best Bond film in the past 20 years. He won't use nearly the amount of CGI as the past three film director's used, plus say what you will about his blandness. The guy hires some of the best stuntmen that ever lived. Cheer up fellas. This could be great. AFterall, 3 months ago Orlando Bloom, Jude Law, and Ewan McGregor were in consideration for the role....
Most of you are obviously suffering from logic deprivation by scrumdiddly	Oct 14th, 2005 06:36:36 PM
Even though that doesn't make sense. A group of people in the modern film industry CANNOT make a good bond film. The charm of the great Bonds can't be reproduced today. Fucking people and their franchise obsessions.
Better choice than expected by Vicconius	Oct 14th, 2005 06:36:39 PM
I was expecting some pretty boy vapid actor, but they actually went with the gritty good actor. I have high hopes for this film now.
Daniel Craig by OldEnoughForMe	Oct 14th, 2005 06:52:32 PM
is an awesome casting choice. I guess Hollywood stopped taking LSD... for now. I hope the story and direction is as cool as Mr. Craig himself. Otherwise, I'm gonna have to arrest Hollywood for taking LSD again.
Bond by ShadowSorkin07	Oct 14th, 2005 07:08:59 PM
I'm just happy they are finally making another one, it's been long enough. The thing I'm sad about is that Brosan was the best bond, at least by my view. Connery was great, don't get me wrong, but Brosan should that edgy side of bond, the dark side, that they need to play more. I agree with the poster above that said they just need a better villian, a better plot. By the way, I enjoyed the last bond movies, they are fun popcorn flicks. People getting all pissy about them are just sad. Mr Craig looks ok in that pick. Also, Crash was the most overated movie of the year.
Baccarat sucks by bah	Oct 14th, 2005 07:35:23 PM
I agree it shouldn't be changed from the book, but seriously, the game is all show. Go Fish -- and I am not exaggerating here -- requires more strategy.
Blonde Bond-shell by Playhouse	Oct 14th, 2005 07:51:40 PM
I like Craig's look. I happen to dig Dalton's Bond the most (though, I do think they squandered him) and Craig does remind me of Dalton. But this blonde shit has to go. The guy should color his hair dark if only to separate Bond from any other roles he takes. James Bond is many things but certainly not blonde.
I've always liked Daniel Craig by Wild At Heart	Oct 14th, 2005 08:35:55 PM
And I have to say I prefer him to be Bond than Clive Owen. I enjoyed Owen in Sin City but I think he's been overhyped by a system that desperately trawls to find the 'next big thing'. For me this is a pretty good outcome. I'm sure the dubiousness many American fans feel about this has to do with the fact that they're not very familiar with Craig's work. I've admired him since the Brit tv series 'Our Friends in the North', and have always thought of him as being dinstinctively goodlooking. I know he'll do well in the role, but I'm not sure I really care much for the film series as a whole if they can't get it back to basic storytelling and performance. The last couple of films have been borderline horrific for my sensibilities. Here's hoping Craig can bring something to the role to make 007 worth caring about again.
I just can't get used to it! by TheGinger Twit	Oct 14th, 2005 08:38:18 PM

Wilson & Broccoli, on the other hand, might just be keeping Sony by FrankDrebin	Oct 14th, 2005 09:53:12 PM
The series is their family legacy. To Sony, it's just a another profit center.
reh by smackfu	Oct 14th, 2005 10:02:46 PM
I've jumped on the James Callis for Bond bandwagon, but Daniel Craig is at least better than them casting some hollywood 'it' boy like Ben Afleck or Orlando Bloom. Then again Ben Afleck never really was an 'it' boy it just appeared that way for a brief period. Personally, I'd rather watch Sean Bean as 006 than anyone as 007.
Shoulda been McMahon by jojo-pimp	Oct 14th, 2005 10:55:54 PM
While i am not trying to denote Craig's acting abilities, i just do not see that suave, cockiness and smart-ass flirtacious Bond that we have seen in such greats as connery and brosnan.
Ok, the pic is helping. by Neosamurai85	Oct 14th, 2005 11:46:47 PM
I think I could get the hang of him as Bond, but they really need to make this a dark picture. Craig will only work if they do as they've hinted and drop the overly smoothe sexy Bond. I just hope this is a good move for Craig. Being bond often makes it hard to get cast as anything else.
Oh and... well... it's not quite a random comment, but I' by Neosamurai85	Oct 14th, 2005 11:49:16 PM
The Hill is one fucking kickass film that I need to add to my list of films to watch at least once a year. God I love that movie! Peace.
The masses don't want a gritty Bond by Twisted Wisdom	Oct 15th, 2005 12:08:18 AM
Even though Die Another Day was not a good film, it still made money. I know the die hard fans want to see a good gritty, Connery style Bond movie, but believe me, a Bond movie like that in this day and age won't make money, and will be considered a failure. You die hard fans will get what you want, but the masses will reject it. Because they have a preconceived expectation of what a Bond movie should be. People don't go to Bond movies to see Jason Bourne, they go to see the gadgets, the corny one liners, the over the top villains, and the dumb Bond girls. You don't re-invent the corporation when it's successful, you make changes when the public stops buying what you're selling. The masses loved Brosnan as Bond, and each of Brosnan's Bond movies made more money than the previous one. Better movies don't always mean better money. The "movie" Bond character is just a caricature. It couldn't survive more than 20 movies being anything more than that. People don't care about Bond's personal demons, or his life before he became a secret agent. At least not in the movies they don't. They want to see Bond drive a fast car, have sex with some hot chicks, blow some stuff up, kill the bad guy, and have some more sex with a hot chick at the end. That's it. No need to complicate things. But I'm afraid that's what the powers that be have done.
I'm intrigued and worried all at the same time... by LucienPierce	Oct 15th, 2005 12:42:47 AM
...After Daniel Craig's performance in Tomb Raider anyone should be filled with dread with this announcement. I haven't seen Layer Cake yet, us plebs in South Africa haven't had it released yet. Die Another Day was cool, up until it lost control with that ridiculous dream machine and that 'car joust' add that very silly looking suit with the goggles and the movie died a horrible death. What intrigues me about Daniel Craig's selection is that perhaps we're going to see a darker edgier more realistic Bond...more along the lines of The Bourne Identity, the early Connery Bonds and of course the reviled (although I just think ppl weren't ready for him) Dalton Bonds. Now that this insanely drawn out selection process has come to an end now we can focus on the movie eh? Though I'm not too pleased about Martin Campbell. While he is a capable director he isn't a particularly amazing director. It seems a bit daft that they go for the edgy lead actor but the sanitary safe director. Perhaps this is the time for him to think out of the box for a change...
If they remake a Bond film, does it mean there's still only by TheGinger Twit	Oct 15th, 2005 01:04:45 AM
Have a smoke and think about it.
I thought the man had a real rugged rough look in layer cake - I by TheGinger Twit	Oct 15th, 2005 01:45:19 AM
He's def not who I'd pick for Bond. But as a fan of Bond, who can slip in and out of each actors portrayal of him (With the exception of Lazenby) I can actually see this working. but only as a ONCE OFF. Casino Royal is such a unique Bond story. I actually can't picture Brosnan playing THAT character. The last Bond film was cool, btw.
Mark my words: Daniel Craig will be the new George Lazenby and d by Triumph poops!	Oct 15th, 2005 02:54:35 AM
I said this in the Bond talkback the other day, and I'll repeat myself. Sorry, but Craig just DOESN'T cut it, and I'm placing bets right now that this his how this will all go down. CASINO will come out...there will be some modest interest in the debut of a new Bond...however word will quickly get out that this guy DOESN'T look as good as Brosnan, he ISN'T "Bond debonair" the way Brosnan was by far, in fact he's like a bull in a china shop and totally out of place as Bond, at least as the movie-going public has come to "see" and more importantly LIKE Bond onscreen...and the result will be near instant bad word of mouth, causing the box office to trail off. Perhaps not all-out terrible grosses designating the film a total bomb like SERENITY, but box office figures just the same that are waaaaaaaay off the mark of any of Brosnan's films -- and thus Craig will be instantly seen as a marketing fuck up and the movie as a definite mistake. At which point -- MARK MY WORDS FOR THIS WILL COME TO PASS -- Craig and Broccoli and Wilson and the Sony brass will find some public way to save face and part company amicably...at which point we'll have to endure this "search for a new Bond" business all over again. At which point Sony will tell Broccoli to shut the fuck up since SHE picked Craig, and Sony will write a blank check to either Hugh Jackman to step into the role (remember, he WAS the person they picked over Craig) or Julian McMahon or Ewan McGregor. Someone the public can actually "like" and get behind. Frankly, Sony blew it. They should have gotten Pierce back for one more film, and let him have an all-out swan song flick and even played that up as part of the media coverage for CASINO to send its box office even higher, given how much the public loved Pierce as Bond. That would have served an alternate purpose as well -- namely it would have bought Sony some more time to find a truly good replacement. So wait and see. Place your bets now. Craig will now join Lazenby as a one-time Bond.
Kirk's Toupee...I'm sorry, broccoli brings out my Touret by RobinP	Oct 15th, 2005 04:02:25 AM
It doesn't matter whether it's Bab's stupid choices or whether it's that green shit my mom used to make me eat.
hey no shit, aint it cool actually predicted something right mor by MiltonWaddams	Oct 15th, 2005 04:22:31 AM
let's not keep this trend up though, go back to posting four day old scans of king kong from a four month old magazine.
Anyone else wanted Gary Stretch? by Trevor Goodchild	Oct 15th, 2005 04:32:46 AM

Daniel Craig will be amazing. Just like Michael Keaton made a gr by Spacesheik	Oct 15th, 2005 04:59:17 AM
This is a bold choice and the Broccolis should be saluted.
So the casting director got some balls? by Lone Fox	Oct 15th, 2005 05:21:56 AM
I've tried to avoid most of the rumours surrounding the new Bond, I'm quite pleased with this news. Maybe they'll get back to the real Bond with Craig (like they tried with Dalton, a great and underappreciated interpretation)
7 vs. 007 by RaulMonkey	Oct 15th, 2005 05:29:21 AM
It doesn't look like anyone mentioned this from a skim of the post titles: Is it just 7 on that Casino Royale graphic as opposed to 007 because Bond doesn't have his License to Kill yet? That's what the double-oh means, right?
this bond won't sell... craig isn't handsome enough by DarthBakpao	Oct 15th, 2005 05:36:11 AM
i think it will flop in asia
RaulMonkey - 7 vs 007 by the crucible	Oct 15th, 2005 08:23:26 AM
Its just 7 to resemble a gun... its a logo thats come along over the past few movies... they drop the double-0 for the sake of the logo looking right, nothing else.
and... by the crucible	Oct 15th, 2005 08:24:58 AM
if you read vertically down its "casinO rOyale 7".. so... 007.
Updating Bond? by Grammaton Cleric	Oct 15th, 2005 09:05:33 AM
C'mon fellas. The Bond flicks have never been about examining internationl politics via intelligent drama. They're about jet packs, cars with missiles, and banging chicks.
Dalton by pumaman	Oct 15th, 2005 09:31:32 AM
was
Dalton by pumaman	Oct 15th, 2005 09:31:33 AM
was
the best.. by pumaman	Oct 15th, 2005 09:33:02 AM
This new guy looks better playing a bad guy - Bond HAS to be decent looking Fuck, Bruce Campbell would have been MY choice,
Maybe this is the start of the Bond franchise's "prequel tri by RobinP	Oct 15th, 2005 09:35:10 AM
So we can poke fun and shit on it form a great altitude. Who's in ? Can I start with James Bland & James Bomb ?
Um, fellas, look at the CASINO ROYALE title again---they don' by Orbots Commander	Oct 15th, 2005 11:16:03 AM
They incorporate it using the highlighted O's from CASINO and ROYALE.
Angelina Jolie by brinkeguthrie	Oct 15th, 2005 12:29:29 PM
..oughta be the next Bond Girl. Of course, she could whup Craig's backside..so maybe not. Maybe she could be the villain. "GoodBYE, Meester Bond."
Moore by brinkeguthrie	Oct 15th, 2005 12:33:25 PM
Someone posted Roger Moore was the best 007. WHAT? He'd make a good TENNIS PRO. Bond has to have an air of danger. Connery had it. Even Dalton had it. (First film great, second terrible. Bad omen when WAYNE NEWTON is one of the bad guys, eh?) Give this guy a vodka martini, a tux, a PPK, and a DB 5. 13 months to go. a day after my 40-007th birthday. Woo Hoo.
Scary Bond by martinsmith93	Oct 15th, 2005 01:30:51 PM
I hated Layer Cake, in fact I only watched it to see what this guy was like. Seeing through the veil of unoriginal retarded shit that is Layer Cake I actually thought he'd make a great Bond. He's more a Timothy Dalton type (my favourite Bond incidentally). I want to see an darker Bond more than anything. Bond, when he's on form, can be one scary son of a bitch, and that's when he's at his most exciting. Timothy Dalton had that look in License To Kill. His best friend and wife were fed to sharks and shot in the head and for the rest of the movie whenever I looked into Bond's eyes I really saw that "I'm gonna shoot you in the balls and stamp on your head if you give me half a chance" look. The World Is Not Enough is nothing like my favourite Bond movie but there is one moment of absolute perfection in that movie that made it worth the watch: the moment when James Bond kills an unarmed woman in cold blood (the Sophia Marceau character) and M comes in moments later. For me, that's one of the all time greatest Bond moments and I would love to see more of THAT James Bond. He's a spy, it isn't in his job description to be liked, his job is to fuck people over to get exactly what it is his government requires of him. I'm fed up of seeing Bond arsing around. Roger Moore's later films are the absolute opposite of how it should be done. He's a spy and spies are thieving, solitary, murdering bastards. Mr Bond is his mask, the charm just another tool in the box. In my opinion anyhow. Probably why OHMSS affected me so much, someone actually managed to get through to him. I got bored of Bond movies a while ago (always a good night out but never terribly exciting) but can't manage to stop myself creaming my shorts at the possibility of a really great Bond film whenever they announce a new one. I think the guy'll do just fine. I hope it marks a change.
let me be the (surprisingly) first to OH SHIT at that pic of him by Holodigm	Oct 15th, 2005 02:21:41 PM
i was excited as hell to know for sure he was bond, and now with that pic the movie can't come soon enough. he looks almost too badass in that pic. damn, that shit's whack!
As a non-bond fan by AwesomeBillFunk	Oct 15th, 2005 03:48:50 PM
Despite being a self confessed geek, or at least someone who has a lot of inescapable geek blood in them, somehow the whole bond section of geekdom passed me by.I have in fact, never actually watched an entire bond movie from beggining to end. Having said that, I think this is pretty cool.
Shane "Scarecrow" FUCKING OWNS Bond's Ass by RezE11even	Oct 15th, 2005 03:55:22 PM
Make me those movies, ye Hollywood bastards.
James Blond by Tony Crawley	Oct 15th, 2005 05:05:45 PM
Worst news since Harery wentg Hollwyood. Craigh is like Timothy Dalton, a great actor,. And you don't need da greatyactor as Bond. Just a great charisma. Poor Cubby must be turining is his grave... Now may I suggdst that it is
Worst . Choice . Ever by Kai_Mah'gra	Oct 15th, 2005 05:18:45 PM

Timothy Dalton should win an Oscar and beat Sean Connery over th by AnnoyYou	Oct 15th, 2005 09:04:15 PM
Otherwise, "meh" to Craig. I still can't get the image of him boning that flabby grandma in "The Mother" out of my mind. Eeewughhh. I think this casting pretty much signals the end of the franchise.
I am psyched........ but not about Craig! by darthbinks1220	Oct 15th, 2005 09:24:29 PM
I love the Ian Fleming Casino Royale novel. Going to the library to take it out tomorrow. Can't wait to see a 'serious' adaptation of it. As for Daniel Craig. Please. This is embarassing. I'M better looking than the guy! I am hoping he carries the substance, 'cause he severely lacks the style.
Now I can safely say............ by darthbinks1220	Oct 15th, 2005 09:28:39 PM
I'm better looking than James Bond.......... err Blond.
IT'S OFFICIAL, JAMES BOND IS.......UGLY! by Thot	Oct 15th, 2005 10:23:56 PM
Let's "face" it,..Bond has always been a handsome ladies' man first and and a spy second. He has to turn women's heads when he walks in a room. Craig is one homely fella. A HORRIBLE choice for Bond. There goes the franchise,..crap.
Bond franchise dead?!? by darthbinks1220	Oct 16th, 2005 12:07:20 AM
The last Bond film, "Die Another Day" grossed 432 million worldwide. This thread seems to be going strong, as well.
Adrian Paul by darthbinks1220	Oct 16th, 2005 12:12:55 AM
The man bears an uncanny resemblance to a young Sean Connery. On top of being a talented actor, he's a good martial artist. He's also imposing and menacing. Craig is a lightweight by comparison.
Craig Looks like a young Terrence Stamp... by Ktak	Oct 16th, 2005 02:49:37 AM
...in that promotional picture. Is this a good or bad thing? At least they're keeping the Walther (P99 not PPK).
Craig looks about as much like a young Terence Stamp as I do. by AnnoyYou	Oct 16th, 2005 03:01:04 AM
Which is to say, not at all. Obviously you've never seen "Billy Budd" or "The Collector." The young Stamp was miraculously beautiful, something Craig definitely is not. Hell, I once saw the old Stamp at a West LA restaurant, and he was a thousand times better looking than Craig will ever be. And I reiterate: Craig is a highly disappointing, down-market choice.
I did see Billy Budd and The Collector by Ktak	Oct 16th, 2005 03:58:29 PM
It just never occurred to me to compare a 22 and 25 year-old Stamp with a 37 year-old Craig. By the time Stamp was Craig's age, he was playing roles like General Zod.
he looks more like a henchman then bond... by slappy jones	Oct 16th, 2005 05:21:49 PM
...but fuck it..i'll still be seeing it.....
declare a boycott by lynxpro	Oct 16th, 2005 10:07:57 PM
Boycott this and Superman Returns. Give the powers that be in Hollywood the message to take casting more serious.
Triumph poops! beat me to my comment. At BEST Craig will be Dalt by Regicidal_Maniac	Oct 16th, 2005 10:39:51 PM
One flick and bam end of franchise. They'll be BEGGING Pierce to come back after this one.
new Walther by potzer	Oct 17th, 2005 10:22:19 AM
From that photo with the gun it looks like they've ditched Bond's signature Walther PPK for the lighter, more modern Walther P99.
Bond's Edge by Dr.007	Oct 19th, 2005 12:31:52 AM
Dalton was a great Bond - the most like the Bond of teh novels but he was put into shit movies where he lost his edge ( wayne fucking newton - i mean that decision gave geeks the right to criticize the industry for another 25 years) Craig has a chance if they give him that edge. there is some serious torture going on in Casino Royale but no real heroic action finish so im frightened what they will come up with. AS for another novel to go with - Colonel Sun could be next up. written by Robert markham after fleming's death - pseudonym kingsley amis- also hard edged with torture and killing and the enemy - communist china would play today as well. so give Craig an edge, and he has a chance.
Bill Nighy by Dr.007	Oct 19th, 2005 12:34:16 AM
for M or Major boothroyd or Bill tanner

Talkbacks

Updated with Images!!! What A Surprise! Daniel Craig Is James Bond!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks