Daniel Craig backlash - Why?

hmmmm-where to start-ok, im against craig david playing bond because, well i dont think he looks like bond. that said-i was more optimistic when i read (in the mirror) i think that john cleese ISNT in the new film and it will be grittier more realistic without the use of gadgets. then a couple of days later they mentioned the use of gadgets in the new film-i think they just make it up.
for me there is only ONE bond-roger moore-i remember seeing "moonraker" at the cinema as a kid then on xmas day sitting in my room while all the family were playing carRAB to watch another bond film on the B/W portable-it was connery-WHO??? -thats not bond!
my point is (as desmond llewlyn put)-everyones favourite bond is the first one they see!
dalton is my second fave and YES closer to the books-chain smoking/heavy drinking bitter assassin- check out the scene in "living daylights" when hes at the hotel room with the oversize snipers gun and hes threatened with the sack!-
"licence to kill" is in my opinion probably one of the best bonRAB out of any. this is the only bond DVD i would buy as well as the roger moores.
brosnan was ok/acceptable-let down by silly spfx as mentioned earlier-the CGI snowboarding is embarassing to watch-but not brosnans fault.
*btw-any bond producers reading this?-ILL play bond for half of what youre paying craig david-ill be gritty like brosnan and camp like moore!-email me SERIOUS! :)
 
I'd love to see them make a real proper James Bond film, i.e. where they have swearing, bloody killings and a man really out there with a 'licence to kill' and not afraid to use it too. A 15 certificate might help too. Theres only ever been one Bond film rated as 15, and thats only because it was the 80's where censorship was off the wall and there was no 12 category invented yet for the film to go into!

Paddy :D
 
I hardly think they will put him in a 1.8 LX to chase the bad guys, do you? Maybe they are trying to inject some reality in there. A spy would probably have less chance of being detected by sneaking around in a Mondeo than he would be screeching past in an Aston.. :rolleyes:
 
Yes, I think Brosnan could have made one more film, but they left it for too long. They should have had another one out for 2004.

Die Another Day started well - The opening in Korea, and the scenes in London (the swordfight for example) were all excellent, and Pierce was great as usual. But there were so many awful, ridiculous elements to it that the film was ultimately ruined: The invisible car, the laser weapon-thing which scorched the earth but merely singed the plane a little, Halle Berry's god-awful performance, the crap dialogue, the never-worse innuendos, the virtual reality sunglasses, a CG-Bond surfing a CG-tidal wave on a piece of scrap metal, the gene therapy nonsense - It went too far and was a reminder of past cock-ups like Moonraker. It may have done good box office but compared to the far-superior World Is Not Enough, I thought it was terrible.

I agree that a "Bond Begins" reboot is probably unneccesary, but its an interesting idea and I would like to see them try something new and bold for a change, rather than trotting out another made-to-order flatpack Bond flick. Which is why I think Daniel Craig is a great choice, particulary for an adaptation of Casino Royale, where the character changes and hardens through the course of the story, which will require a skilled and believable actor and not just a pretty boy.

I also agree with you about Licence to Kill - A great Bond movie which tried to take the character into new territory. I think it was a little unfortunate it was released in 1989 as it ended up being swamped by the likes of Batman and Last Crusade.
 
My feelings exactly - I don't know which was the worst, the invisible car or the CGI tidal wave scene.

As for Daniel Craig, I don't really know much about him and haven't seen him in anything, as far as I recall (though I do have "Layer Cake" in my DVD collection, waiting to be watched). But I say give the bloke a chance. I can't understand the treatment he's getting before - as someone above says - a single frame of footage of him as Bond has been shown.
 
Or .. there's a backlash to all the stupid "invisible cars".

Maybe all he does in the film is grab the nearest Mondeo and uses his wits to outgun the superior (or numerous) enemy cars.

I mean - this is the "For Your Eyes Only" of the modern era of James Bond.

Coming after the over-the-top excesses of "Die Another Day", it's just a repeat of what happened after the similarly excessive "Moonraker".

As for www.CraignotBond.com

I laughed out loud like a hammy Bond villain when I saw that pathetic excuse for a site:

"I was curious to see what kind of people would take on the mighty Daniel Craig. I thought you may have a place at my side. I was wrong, you are nothing but a bunch of whingeing fanboys ... whose luck has run out!"

A strange thing for me to say - but when Dr No said something extremely similar to Sean Connery in 1962, it was Ian Fleming himself who was the whingeing fanboy!! He wanted David Niven to play Bond not the working class Scot who eventually won him over with his transformation into the cultured, but brutal character that I`m sure Craig will deliver back to us again.

For many fans, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" is the closest a Bond film came to arthouse cinema! Yet it starred someone who looked the part, but couldn't act for toffee.
The final scene of that film when Bond's wife dies is heart wrenching because Bond seems unable to shed any tears even though you know he wants to - tailor made for George Lazenby then!

I`m encouraged - the Bond films have always been good fun. But they've long since abandoned the gritty spyish-ness that films like Dr No, From Russia With Love, Thunderball and On Her Majesty's had.

They seem to want to return to that and have selected an actor who they think is versatile enough to make Bond a real character again instead of an entertaining characature running around in his Tuxedo and ordering Martinis inbetween gadget-laden gunfights.

And so they came up with Daniel Craig - who looks nothing like James Bond!

What better disguise? Maybe we have a proper SPY hero on screen again, then ...
 
That is the best stunt I have ever seen in any movie. Thats the problem with Die Another Day, computer effects have taken over real stunts which is what made the Bond films. I welcome Daniel Criag to the role.
 
I bet the producers are loving all the hype and publicity this is giving them.
They know they have got a decent actor and as Roger Moore said "If I can play it anyone can" meaning the format does not need a decent actor (sorry rog!) to play Bond as its mainly action sequences and special effects which my Gran could do if she had a double and the editing was right, which means that if you have a decent actor then the plots can be so much better,
How many times in recent history has bond shown a slght tinge at the death of the current squeeze by the baddie?
The criticisms could have been levelled at any of the other BonRAB and they almost all nearly pulled it off (the problem with the ones who didn't were they couldn't act!)

The coverage the film is getting though negative is making everyone curious about the new film. The film has not finished shooting yet though its had more column inches than most films get by the time the dvd is remaindered. The negative spin at this early stage can be turned round and by the time it premieres I bet all this stuff will be forgotten.


I wouldn't be suprised if the producers and marketing men are encouraging this campaign.
 
If you have a look at the site www.commanderbond.com, rather than people, it seems to be one sad person who set up www.craigisnotbond.com!

Agree; give Craig the benefit of the doubt and wait until you have seen the film before passing judgement.
 
Well, when I clicked on the "commanderbond" link I just ended up on one of those dodgy search engine pages, and "craigisnotbond" doesn't seem to exist either ("error: web page not found")
 
I think he's seriously gorgeous and will make a great Bond. He's so sexy and not as 80s looking as Brosnan. Hpe he does well. the backlash like other posters have stated is seriously juvenile.
 
Back
Top