No Time To Die: Production Diary

1110211031105110711082507

Comments

  • Posts: 6,601
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker

    Do you really think they would have hired someone with his face if they had wanted to stay on the old track? If anything Craigs face screams "realism!" Not suave playboy the sixth
    Also, I remember an interview with him long before casino royale it was released where he was asked what he did when he got to the new James Bond. He said it was on the cell phone while he was on the go and the next thing he did was going to pop ordering a beer and thinking this might be the last time that he was able to do so. So if seems he was told they take him not that he told EON he was willing to do the job. Of course he wanted the job. He knew that it would make him rich beyond belief. Something he realistically couldn't expect otherwise from his career.
    . He Said no the Time he was asked because no script could be shown. They Developed that and got into further talk After that. WE Know, he was Not Wanted by everybody, so of course, there were discussions, which BB won, so she called him. But he did have the Guts to say No when there wasnt a dezent Script, showing what Kind of Bond they Wanted him to Play. So, Money or Not, he wasnt for Säle just because it was Bond.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker

    Do you really think they would have hired someone with his face if they had wanted to stay on the old track? If anything Craigs face screams "realism!" Not suave playboy the sixth
    Also, I remember an interview with him long before casino royale it was released where he was asked what he did when he got to the new James Bond. He said it was on the cell phone while he was on the go and the next thing he did was going to pop ordering a beer and thinking this might be the last time that he was able to do so. So if seems he was told they take him not that he told EON he was willing to do the job. Of course he wanted the job. He knew that it would make him rich beyond belief. Something he realistically couldn't expect otherwise from his career.
    . He Said no the Time he was asked because no script could be shown. They Developed that and got into further talk After that. WE Know, he was Not Wanted by everybody, so of course, there were discussions, which BB won, so she called him. But he did have the Guts to say No when there wasnt a dezent Script, showing what Kind of Bond they Wanted him to Play. So, Money or Not, he wasnt for Säle just because it was Bond.
    Yes, I believe this was the case. He wanted involvement in shaping the character and also had to be convinced of his fit for the role because he didn't feel comfortable playing the suave playboy that Bond had become (correctly, in my view). EON had a new approach which they felt he was right for (and he was).

    The question now is why is he back? They must have an interesting script idea on the table, otherwise what is his reasoning?
  • Posts: 1,162
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker

    Do you really think they would have hired someone with his face if they had wanted to stay on the old track? If anything Craigs face screams "realism!" Not suave playboy the sixth
    Also, I remember an interview with him long before casino royale it was released where he was asked what he did when he got to the new James Bond. He said it was on the cell phone while he was on the go and the next thing he did was going to pop ordering a beer and thinking this might be the last time that he was able to do so. So if seems he was told they take him not that he told EON he was willing to do the job. Of course he wanted the job. He knew that it would make him rich beyond belief. Something he realistically couldn't expect otherwise from his career.
    . He Said no the Time he was asked because no script could be shown. They Developed that and got into further talk After that. WE Know, he was Not Wanted by everybody, so of course, there were discussions, which BB won, so she called him. But he did have the Guts to say No when there wasnt a dezent Script, showing what Kind of Bond they Wanted him to Play. So, Money or Not, he wasnt for Säle just because it was Bond.

    Whom exactly do we know who was actually at the negotiation table? To me this all mostly is a myth. Just like to notion that Craig wants and demands sophisticated scripts. After all this is a man that starred in a movie called cowboys and aliens! Need I really say more?
    If so I also could refer to his last two Bond movies which arguably are the most logic lacking in the history of a franchise that's known not to be for nitpickers.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker

    Do you really think they would have hired someone with his face if they had wanted to stay on the old track? If anything Craigs face screams "realism!" Not suave playboy the sixth
    Also, I remember an interview with him long before casino royale it was released where he was asked what he did when he got to the new James Bond. He said it was on the cell phone while he was on the go and the next thing he did was going to pop ordering a beer and thinking this might be the last time that he was able to do so. So if seems he was told they take him not that he told EON he was willing to do the job. Of course he wanted the job. He knew that it would make him rich beyond belief. Something he realistically couldn't expect otherwise from his career.
    . He Said no the Time he was asked because no script could be shown. They Developed that and got into further talk After that. WE Know, he was Not Wanted by everybody, so of course, there were discussions, which BB won, so she called him. But he did have the Guts to say No when there wasnt a dezent Script, showing what Kind of Bond they Wanted him to Play. So, Money or Not, he wasnt for Säle just because it was Bond.

    Whom exactly do we know who was actually at the negotiation table? To me this all mostly is a myth. Just like to notion that Craig wants and demands sophisticated scripts. After all this is a man that starred in a movie called cowboys and aliens! Need I really say more?
    If so I also could refer to his last two Bond movies which arguably are the most logic lacking in the history of a franchise that's known not to be for nitpickers.
    It is possible that logic in scripts is not the driving force for his interest in the franchise or acting in a particular film. It could be character peel back and emotions, as well as capacity to explore elements of a character's persona while working with high profile directorial and acting talent. This could also be something Babs is interested in doing, given that they've given us more of this sort of thing ever since she took over (including during the Brosnan years).

    We can debate whether that is appropriate or not (I tend to think it isn't), but we should at least acknowledge that strict logic may not be major factor behind this.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker

    Do you really think they would have hired someone with his face if they had wanted to stay on the old track? If anything Craigs face screams "realism!" Not suave playboy the sixth
    Also, I remember an interview with him long before casino royale it was released where he was asked what he did when he got to the new James Bond. He said it was on the cell phone while he was on the go and the next thing he did was going to pop ordering a beer and thinking this might be the last time that he was able to do so. So if seems he was told they take him not that he told EON he was willing to do the job. Of course he wanted the job. He knew that it would make him rich beyond belief. Something he realistically couldn't expect otherwise from his career.
    . He Said no the Time he was asked because no script could be shown. They Developed that and got into further talk After that. WE Know, he was Not Wanted by everybody, so of course, there were discussions, which BB won, so she called him. But he did have the Guts to say No when there wasnt a dezent Script, showing what Kind of Bond they Wanted him to Play. So, Money or Not, he wasnt for Säle just because it was Bond.

    Whom exactly do we know who was actually at the negotiation table? To me this all mostly is a myth. Just like to notion that Craig wants and demands sophisticated scripts. After all this is a man that starred in a movie called cowboys and aliens! Need I really say more?
    If so I also could refer to his last two Bond movies which arguably are the most logic lacking in the history of a franchise that's known not to be for nitpickers.

    Blowing hot air. Remind you Craig is the only Bond with Production credits for a reason, he has input in everything..Story, Wardrobe and brought A list friends to the table. He bought in to it and has made the gig his own. You then made a daft comment about Craig's face. About 90% of the female population find him sexy. He's been dubbed a modern day Steve Mcqueen. He is not a pretty boy his appeal is rugged. A bit like the character Fleming created and intended Bond to be.

    Slim build; a three-inch long, thin vertical scar on his right cheek; blue-grey eyes; a "cruel" mouth".

    If they had given Craig dark hair he would look like Connery http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4775/4130/1600/CraigInfamousDarkHair.jpg
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited October 2017 Posts: 2,138
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker

    Do you really think they would have hired someone with his face if they had wanted to stay on the old track? If anything Craigs face screams "realism!" Not suave playboy the sixth
    Also, I remember an interview with him long before casino royale it was released where he was asked what he did when he got to the new James Bond. He said it was on the cell phone while he was on the go and the next thing he did was going to pop ordering a beer and thinking this might be the last time that he was able to do so. So if seems he was told they take him not that he told EON he was willing to do the job. Of course he wanted the job. He knew that it would make him rich beyond belief. Something he realistically couldn't expect otherwise from his career.
    . He Said no the Time he was asked because no script could be shown. They Developed that and got into further talk After that. WE Know, he was Not Wanted by everybody, so of course, there were discussions, which BB won, so she called him. But he did have the Guts to say No when there wasnt a dezent Script, showing what Kind of Bond they Wanted him to Play. So, Money or Not, he wasnt for Säle just because it was Bond.

    Whom exactly do we know who was actually at the negotiation table? To me this all mostly is a myth. Just like to notion that Craig wants and demands sophisticated scripts. After all this is a man that starred in a movie called cowboys and aliens! Need I really say more?
    If so I also could refer to his last two Bond movies which arguably are the most logic lacking in the history of a franchise that's known not to be for nitpickers.

    He did that film because Harrison Ford is his idol and wanted to work with him. Craig's outfit in Skyfall with the leather Jacket is based on Indiana Jones. Just like it was Ford who got him the Star Wars cameo.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 1,162
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker

    Do you really think they would have hired someone with his face if they had wanted to stay on the old track? If anything Craigs face screams "realism!" Not suave playboy the sixth
    Also, I remember an interview with him long before casino royale it was released where he was asked what he did when he got to the new James Bond. He said it was on the cell phone while he was on the go and the next thing he did was going to pop ordering a beer and thinking this might be the last time that he was able to do so. So if seems he was told they take him not that he told EON he was willing to do the job. Of course he wanted the job. He knew that it would make him rich beyond belief. Something he realistically couldn't expect otherwise from his career.
    . He Said no the Time he was asked because no script could be shown. They Developed that and got into further talk After that. WE Know, he was Not Wanted by everybody, so of course, there were discussions, which BB won, so she called him. But he did have the Guts to say No when there wasnt a dezent Script, showing what Kind of Bond they Wanted him to Play. So, Money or Not, he wasnt for Säle just because it was Bond.

    Whom exactly do we know who was actually at the negotiation table? To me this all mostly is a myth. Just like to notion that Craig wants and demands sophisticated scripts. After all this is a man that starred in a movie called cowboys and aliens! Need I really say more?
    If so I also could refer to his last two Bond movies which arguably are the most logic lacking in the history of a franchise that's known not to be for nitpickers.

    Blowing hot air. Remind you Craig is the only Bond with Production credits for a reason, he has input in everything..Story, Wardrobe and brought A list friends to the table. He bought in to it and has made the gig his own. You then made a daft comment about Craig's face. About 90% of the female population find him sexy. He's been dubbed a modern day Steve Mcqueen. He is not a pretty boy his appeal is rugged. A bit like the character Fleming created and intended Bond to be.

    Slim build; a three-inch long, thin vertical scar on his right cheek; blue-grey eyes; a "cruel" mouth".

    If they had given Craig dark hair he would look like Connery http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4775/4130/1600/CraigInfamousDarkHair.jpg

    This is not about sexy (even though I doubt that it's 90% of the female population that find him sexy ).I wrote that his face rather screams realism than escapism. Let me quote the German magazine Der Spiegel " he looks like a boxer who lost more fights than he won".
    Again, it simply flies in the face of logic to assume that they would have asked him in the first place if they had wanted to stay on the old track.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker

    Do you really think they would have hired someone with his face if they had wanted to stay on the old track? If anything Craigs face screams "realism!" Not suave playboy the sixth
    Also, I remember an interview with him long before casino royale it was released where he was asked what he did when he got to the new James Bond. He said it was on the cell phone while he was on the go and the next thing he did was going to pop ordering a beer and thinking this might be the last time that he was able to do so. So if seems he was told they take him not that he told EON he was willing to do the job. Of course he wanted the job. He knew that it would make him rich beyond belief. Something he realistically couldn't expect otherwise from his career.
    . He Said no the Time he was asked because no script could be shown. They Developed that and got into further talk After that. WE Know, he was Not Wanted by everybody, so of course, there were discussions, which BB won, so she called him. But he did have the Guts to say No when there wasnt a dezent Script, showing what Kind of Bond they Wanted him to Play. So, Money or Not, he wasnt for Säle just because it was Bond.

    Whom exactly do we know who was actually at the negotiation table? To me this all mostly is a myth. Just like to notion that Craig wants and demands sophisticated scripts. After all this is a man that starred in a movie called cowboys and aliens! Need I really say more?
    If so I also could refer to his last two Bond movies which arguably are the most logic lacking in the history of a franchise that's known not to be for nitpickers.

    He did that film because Harrison Ford is his idol and wanted to work with him. Craig's outfit in Skyfall with the leather Jacket is based on Indiana Jones.

    Just as everything in Skyfall is based on something that was done before.
  • Posts: 6,601
    he did C/A because he had always dreamed to be in a cowboy film and yes, Blade Runner was instrumental in wanting to become an actor. The SW gig, he got by himself. He asked, when they were filming in Pinewood. And yes, C/A us a terrible film.
    Oh, and Solace, where YOU on set to judge, who did which "bad" decision? He is co producer, so he is responsible for the whole of it as is the rest of the prods. Sure enough, and most likely some of the lesser ideas were his, as might have been some of the good ones. Never the less were those last two films highly successful, which is where it counts after all.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Again, it simply flies in the face of logic to assume that they would have asked him in the first place if they had wanted to stay on the old track.
    They certainly didn't want to stay on the same track. They wanted a tougher, more rugged Bond. A younger one too. Craig fit the bill, although there was a debate about going younger with Cavill. Acting chops and screen presence won out. He was definitely the right man for the direction they wanted to take the character in in 2006 and 2008. He was good in 2012, but honestly I thought he was somewhat lost around all the drama and charisma popping out from the other characters. I don't think he was as suitable for what they tried to do and where they attempted to go in 2015, but of course there are quite a few members here who disagree with me.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker

    Do you really think they would have hired someone with his face if they had wanted to stay on the old track? If anything Craigs face screams "realism!" Not suave playboy the sixth
    Also, I remember an interview with him long before casino royale it was released where he was asked what he did when he got to the new James Bond. He said it was on the cell phone while he was on the go and the next thing he did was going to pop ordering a beer and thinking this might be the last time that he was able to do so. So if seems he was told they take him not that he told EON he was willing to do the job. Of course he wanted the job. He knew that it would make him rich beyond belief. Something he realistically couldn't expect otherwise from his career.
    . He Said no the Time he was asked because no script could be shown. They Developed that and got into further talk After that. WE Know, he was Not Wanted by everybody, so of course, there were discussions, which BB won, so she called him. But he did have the Guts to say No when there wasnt a dezent Script, showing what Kind of Bond they Wanted him to Play. So, Money or Not, he wasnt for Säle just because it was Bond.

    Whom exactly do we know who was actually at the negotiation table? To me this all mostly is a myth. Just like to notion that Craig wants and demands sophisticated scripts. After all this is a man that starred in a movie called cowboys and aliens! Need I really say more?
    If so I also could refer to his last two Bond movies which arguably are the most logic lacking in the history of a franchise that's known not to be for nitpickers.

    Blowing hot air. Remind you Craig is the only Bond with Production credits for a reason, he has input in everything..Story, Wardrobe and brought A list friends to the table. He bought in to it and has made the gig his own. You then made a daft comment about Craig's face. About 90% of the female population find him sexy. He's been dubbed a modern day Steve Mcqueen. He is not a pretty boy his appeal is rugged. A bit like the character Fleming created and intended Bond to be.

    Slim build; a three-inch long, thin vertical scar on his right cheek; blue-grey eyes; a "cruel" mouth".

    If they had given Craig dark hair he would look like Connery http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4775/4130/1600/CraigInfamousDarkHair.jpg

    This is not about sexy (even though I doubt that it's 90% of the female population that find him sexy ).I wrote that his face rather screams realism than escapism. Let me quote the German magazine Der Spiegel " he looks like a boxer who lost more fights than he won".
    Again, it simply flies in the face of logic to assume that they would have asked him in the first place if they had wanted to stay on the old track.

    Sorry I must have missed that edition of Derby Spiegel that authority on Bond magazine.

    Barbara Broccoli later told Vanity Fair. “We had several meetings with him. We talked him through his concerns. He’s someone who’s very professional, and he throws himself into whatever he’s doing, and he understood it’d be a long commitment.”

    Daniel Craig: The script really… and Barbara badgering me. I hadn’t seen a script at that point, and I was obviously giving it serious thought then. I’d have been stupid not to. But I hadn’t seen a script and the process hadn’t really gotten going. Once I sat down and read the story, I just thought that I wanted to tell this story. I really do. I mean, I’m a big Bond fan, and I love what he represents, and it was almost slightly annoying to finally read it and go, “Oh, Jesus! It’s good!” And that was it, and we were away."

    Barbara Broccoli: Well, he’s a phenomenal actor. I think he’s the actor that defies his generation of actors. I was a huge fan of his work, the films he’d made, and when we decided we were going to make “Casino Royale,” it’s obviously a big decision who we’re going to use, and he was always in the forefront of our minds. Obviously, there was a lot of stuff in the press, but the reality was that he was in the forefront, and it wasn’t until we were able to give him the script that we started talking, and once we did, things moved very quickly."

    Broccoli: I think it’s very hard to compare other actors. I mean, they’ve all done movies and they were all actors in different ways. They were all of their time, and they all took the character in a direction that was successful and we were very happy with it. Now, we’re in a new phase and we’ve got a phenomenal actor. The fact is that it would be nice to make it sound like it’s all a big hocus pocus thing, the reality is we went to recast the role and we sat down and asked, “Who is the best actor around for the role?” and we said Daniel, and here he is. It’s as simple as that."

    Night mate. Or gute nacht!
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 12,837
    I do think Bond 25 coupd be something really special. I loved Spectre but I get the impression that DC wasn't too happy with how it turned out (I still think if it'd done as well critically as CR and SF he wouldn't have bothered with another, it was definitely written as an ending judging from the leaks), so I think that he'll really want to knock it out of the park with this one. I'm optimistic, especially if they do YOLT, and I'm fully expecting a proper acting masterclass from him no matter how good or bad the film is.

    Might be getting ahead of myself but could we be looking at the first actor playing James Bond to get a Oscar nom? And I could definitely see him winning a Bafta if the film is good enough and if they drum up enough hype with the whole "last (Craig) Bond film" angle. There's some buzz around Hugh Jackman for Logan this year isn't there? And there was plenty around The Dark Knight, Skyfall, Fury Road. And Stallone managed to get a nomination for Creed despite being seen (wrongly, he's a brilliant actor and writer/director) as a bit of a joke since the mid to late 80s, so I think if the film is good enough and gets enough praise that sort of outweighs the usual snobbery. If they play their cards right and get the right talent involved it's definitely not out of the question imo.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker

    Do you really think they would have hired someone with his face if they had wanted to stay on the old track? If anything Craigs face screams "realism!" Not suave playboy the sixth
    Also, I remember an interview with him long before casino royale it was released where he was asked what he did when he got to the new James Bond. He said it was on the cell phone while he was on the go and the next thing he did was going to pop ordering a beer and thinking this might be the last time that he was able to do so. So if seems he was told they take him not that he told EON he was willing to do the job. Of course he wanted the job. He knew that it would make him rich beyond belief. Something he realistically couldn't expect otherwise from his career.
    . He Said no the Time he was asked because no script could be shown. They Developed that and got into further talk After that. WE Know, he was Not Wanted by everybody, so of course, there were discussions, which BB won, so she called him. But he did have the Guts to say No when there wasnt a dezent Script, showing what Kind of Bond they Wanted him to Play. So, Money or Not, he wasnt for Säle just because it was Bond.

    Whom exactly do we know who was actually at the negotiation table? To me this all mostly is a myth. Just like to notion that Craig wants and demands sophisticated scripts. After all this is a man that starred in a movie called cowboys and aliens! Need I really say more?
    If so I also could refer to his last two Bond movies which arguably are the most logic lacking in the history of a franchise that's known not to be for nitpickers.

    Blowing hot air. Remind you Craig is the only Bond with Production credits for a reason, he has input in everything..Story, Wardrobe and brought A list friends to the table. He bought in to it and has made the gig his own. You then made a daft comment about Craig's face. About 90% of the female population find him sexy. He's been dubbed a modern day Steve Mcqueen. He is not a pretty boy his appeal is rugged. A bit like the character Fleming created and intended Bond to be.

    Slim build; a three-inch long, thin vertical scar on his right cheek; blue-grey eyes; a "cruel" mouth".

    If they had given Craig dark hair he would look like Connery http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4775/4130/1600/CraigInfamousDarkHair.jpg

    This is not about sexy (even though I doubt that it's 90% of the female population that find him sexy ).I wrote that his face rather screams realism than escapism. Let me quote the German magazine Der Spiegel " he looks like a boxer who lost more fights than he won".
    Again, it simply flies in the face of logic to assume that they would have asked him in the first place if they had wanted to stay on the old track.

    Sorry I must have missed that edition of Derby Spiegel that authority on Bond magazine.
    !

    Show me one comment about him before he was famous for being James Bond that related to his good looks and sexiness. I can still quite well remember what I heard people saying about him. No matter if they were men or women.
    Also, I can still very well remember what women said when Brosnan was announced as Bond.
    Talking about contrast!
    Sleep well yourself.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Might be getting ahead of myself but could we be looking at the first actor playing James Bond to get a Oscar nom?
    @thelivingroyale, I certainly hope they don't even think about this. I don't see it happening either, given what Bond represents in the context of the very sensitive political climate we are in right now. The Academy is reeling from a recent expulsion after all.

    They should just make a decent Bond film which embraces the character (warts and all) and leave any hopes of acting nominations alone.
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker

    Do you really think they would have hired someone with his face if they had wanted to stay on the old track? If anything Craigs face screams "realism!" Not suave playboy the sixth
    Also, I remember an interview with him long before casino royale it was released where he was asked what he did when he got to the new James Bond. He said it was on the cell phone while he was on the go and the next thing he did was going to pop ordering a beer and thinking this might be the last time that he was able to do so. So if seems he was told they take him not that he told EON he was willing to do the job. Of course he wanted the job. He knew that it would make him rich beyond belief. Something he realistically couldn't expect otherwise from his career.
    . He Said no the Time he was asked because no script could be shown. They Developed that and got into further talk After that. WE Know, he was Not Wanted by everybody, so of course, there were discussions, which BB won, so she called him. But he did have the Guts to say No when there wasnt a dezent Script, showing what Kind of Bond they Wanted him to Play. So, Money or Not, he wasnt for Säle just because it was Bond.

    Whom exactly do we know who was actually at the negotiation table? To me this all mostly is a myth. Just like to notion that Craig wants and demands sophisticated scripts. After all this is a man that starred in a movie called cowboys and aliens! Need I really say more?
    If so I also could refer to his last two Bond movies which arguably are the most logic lacking in the history of a franchise that's known not to be for nitpickers.

    Blowing hot air. Remind you Craig is the only Bond with Production credits for a reason, he has input in everything..Story, Wardrobe and brought A list friends to the table. He bought in to it and has made the gig his own. You then made a daft comment about Craig's face. About 90% of the female population find him sexy. He's been dubbed a modern day Steve Mcqueen. He is not a pretty boy his appeal is rugged. A bit like the character Fleming created and intended Bond to be.

    Slim build; a three-inch long, thin vertical scar on his right cheek; blue-grey eyes; a "cruel" mouth".

    If they had given Craig dark hair he would look like Connery http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4775/4130/1600/CraigInfamousDarkHair.jpg

    This is not about sexy (even though I doubt that it's 90% of the female population that find him sexy ).I wrote that his face rather screams realism than escapism. Let me quote the German magazine Der Spiegel " he looks like a boxer who lost more fights than he won".
    Again, it simply flies in the face of logic to assume that they would have asked him in the first place if they had wanted to stay on the old track.

    Sorry I must have missed that edition of Derby Spiegel that authority on Bond magazine.
    !

    Show me one comment about him before he was famous for being James Bond that related to his good looks and sexiness. I can still quite well remember what I heard people saying about him. No matter if they were men or women.
    Also, I can still very well remember what women said when Brosnan was announced as Bond.
    Talking about contrast!
    Sleep well yourself.
    I don't believe Craig was hired for matinee idol looks, but he may have been hired partially for being able to project a screen confidence and masculinity which is attractive to women (and certainly to the female producer of the series in my opinion).
  • bondjames wrote: »
    Might be getting ahead of myself but could we be looking at the first actor playing James Bond to get a Oscar nom?
    @thelivingroyale, I certainly hope they don't even think about this. I don't see it happening either, given what Bond represents in the context of the very sensitive political climate we are in right now. The Academy is reeling from a recent expulsion after all.

    They should just make a decent film and leave any hopes of acting nominations alone.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think they should make a film solely to win awards, but I do think that in the last few years there seems to have been a trend forming of traditionally campy/popcorny franchises and genre doing well enough to force the Academy to take notice. I was so happy to see Stallone nominated for Creed for example. Brilliant actor, especially when it comes to Rocky, but the Rambo sequels and the other action films he's done have meant he was seen as a bit of a joke. But Creed (unlike say Rocky Balboa, which deserved a lot more praise and attention than it got) was a big enough hit to transcend the images people had in their minds of 80s montages and Stallone machine gunning loads of people. I think if Bond 25 is good enough then the same could happen with Bond. They already came really close with CR and SF but I think that with the story they've set up now, there's so much potential for Craig to really show what a good dramatic actor he is.
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker

    Do you really think they would have hired someone with his face if they had wanted to stay on the old track? If anything Craigs face screams "realism!" Not suave playboy the sixth
    Also, I remember an interview with him long before casino royale it was released where he was asked what he did when he got to the new James Bond. He said it was on the cell phone while he was on the go and the next thing he did was going to pop ordering a beer and thinking this might be the last time that he was able to do so. So if seems he was told they take him not that he told EON he was willing to do the job. Of course he wanted the job. He knew that it would make him rich beyond belief. Something he realistically couldn't expect otherwise from his career.
    . He Said no the Time he was asked because no script could be shown. They Developed that and got into further talk After that. WE Know, he was Not Wanted by everybody, so of course, there were discussions, which BB won, so she called him. But he did have the Guts to say No when there wasnt a dezent Script, showing what Kind of Bond they Wanted him to Play. So, Money or Not, he wasnt for Säle just because it was Bond.

    Whom exactly do we know who was actually at the negotiation table? To me this all mostly is a myth. Just like to notion that Craig wants and demands sophisticated scripts. After all this is a man that starred in a movie called cowboys and aliens! Need I really say more?
    If so I also could refer to his last two Bond movies which arguably are the most logic lacking in the history of a franchise that's known not to be for nitpickers.

    Blowing hot air. Remind you Craig is the only Bond with Production credits for a reason, he has input in everything..Story, Wardrobe and brought A list friends to the table. He bought in to it and has made the gig his own. You then made a daft comment about Craig's face. About 90% of the female population find him sexy. He's been dubbed a modern day Steve Mcqueen. He is not a pretty boy his appeal is rugged. A bit like the character Fleming created and intended Bond to be.

    Slim build; a three-inch long, thin vertical scar on his right cheek; blue-grey eyes; a "cruel" mouth".

    If they had given Craig dark hair he would look like Connery http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4775/4130/1600/CraigInfamousDarkHair.jpg

    This is not about sexy (even though I doubt that it's 90% of the female population that find him sexy ).I wrote that his face rather screams realism than escapism. Let me quote the German magazine Der Spiegel " he looks like a boxer who lost more fights than he won".
    Again, it simply flies in the face of logic to assume that they would have asked him in the first place if they had wanted to stay on the old track.

    Sorry I must have missed that edition of Derby Spiegel that authority on Bond magazine.
    !

    Show me one comment about him before he was famous for being James Bond that related to his good looks and sexiness. I can still quite well remember what I heard people saying about him. No matter if they were men or women.
    Also, I can still very well remember what women said when Brosnan was announced as Bond.
    Talking about contrast!
    Sleep well yourself.

    Were you around when CR came out? The scene at the beach was one of the big talking points. Brosnan is definitely more handsome than Craig and I'm sure a lot of women prefer him but CR was the first time I can remember where the main point of sex appeal people were talking about seemed to come from James Bond himself rather than the women. Now he's obviously aged quite a bit since and can't bulk up that way again, but at the time there was a lot of buzz around Craig's sex appeal when the film came out (emphasis on when the film came out, I know that when he turned up to the press conference with that terrible haircut there was a lot of backlash).
  • Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    Might be getting ahead of myself but could we be looking at the first actor playing James Bond to get a Oscar nom?
    @thelivingroyale, I certainly hope they don't even think about this. I don't see it happening either, given what Bond represents in the context of the very sensitive political climate we are in right now. The Academy is reeling from a recent expulsion after all.

    They should just make a decent film and leave any hopes of acting nominations alone.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think they should make a film solely to win awards, but I do think that in the last few years there seems to have been a trend forming of traditionally campy/popcorny franchises and genre doing well enough to force the Academy to take notice. I was so happy to see Stallone nominated for Creed for example. Brilliant actor, especially when it comes to Rocky, but the Rambo sequels and the other action films he's done have meant he was seen as a bit of a joke. But Creed (unlike say Rocky Balboa, which deserved a lot more praise and attention than it got) was a big enough hit to transcend the images people had in their minds of 80s montages and Stallone machine gunning loads of people. I think if Bond 25 is good enough then the same could happen with Bond. They already came really close with CR and SF but I think that with the story they've set up now, there's so much potential for Craig to really show what a good dramatic actor he is.
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker

    Do you really think they would have hired someone with his face if they had wanted to stay on the old track? If anything Craigs face screams "realism!" Not suave playboy the sixth
    Also, I remember an interview with him long before casino royale it was released where he was asked what he did when he got to the new James Bond. He said it was on the cell phone while he was on the go and the next thing he did was going to pop ordering a beer and thinking this might be the last time that he was able to do so. So if seems he was told they take him not that he told EON he was willing to do the job. Of course he wanted the job. He knew that it would make him rich beyond belief. Something he realistically couldn't expect otherwise from his career.
    . He Said no the Time he was asked because no script could be shown. They Developed that and got into further talk After that. WE Know, he was Not Wanted by everybody, so of course, there were discussions, which BB won, so she called him. But he did have the Guts to say No when there wasnt a dezent Script, showing what Kind of Bond they Wanted him to Play. So, Money or Not, he wasnt for Säle just because it was Bond.

    Whom exactly do we know who was actually at the negotiation table? To me this all mostly is a myth. Just like to notion that Craig wants and demands sophisticated scripts. After all this is a man that starred in a movie called cowboys and aliens! Need I really say more?
    If so I also could refer to his last two Bond movies which arguably are the most logic lacking in the history of a franchise that's known not to be for nitpickers.

    Blowing hot air. Remind you Craig is the only Bond with Production credits for a reason, he has input in everything..Story, Wardrobe and brought A list friends to the table. He bought in to it and has made the gig his own. You then made a daft comment about Craig's face. About 90% of the female population find him sexy. He's been dubbed a modern day Steve Mcqueen. He is not a pretty boy his appeal is rugged. A bit like the character Fleming created and intended Bond to be.

    Slim build; a three-inch long, thin vertical scar on his right cheek; blue-grey eyes; a "cruel" mouth".

    If they had given Craig dark hair he would look like Connery http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4775/4130/1600/CraigInfamousDarkHair.jpg

    This is not about sexy (even though I doubt that it's 90% of the female population that find him sexy ).I wrote that his face rather screams realism than escapism. Let me quote the German magazine Der Spiegel " he looks like a boxer who lost more fights than he won".
    Again, it simply flies in the face of logic to assume that they would have asked him in the first place if they had wanted to stay on the old track.

    Sorry I must have missed that edition of Derby Spiegel that authority on Bond magazine.
    !

    Show me one comment about him before he was famous for being James Bond that related to his good looks and sexiness. I can still quite well remember what I heard people saying about him. No matter if they were men or women.
    Also, I can still very well remember what women said when Brosnan was announced as Bond.
    Talking about contrast!
    Sleep well yourself.

    Were you around when CR came out? The scene at the beach was one of the big talking points. Brosnan is definitely more handsome than Craig and I'm sure a lot of women prefer him but CR was the first time I can remember where the main point of sex appeal people were talking about seemed to come from James Bond himself rather than the women. Now he's obviously aged quite a bit since and can't bulk up that way again, but at the time there was a lot of buzz around Craig's sex appeal when the film came out (emphasis on when the film came out, I know that when he turned up to the press conference with that terrible haircut there was a lot of backlash).

    The key word in my comment was "before". Also, I find it very telling that Craig is the first bond actor who had to bulk up substantially for the role. With all the other Bonds no one even bothered to mention their built.
  • Posts: 1,926
    bondjames wrote: »
    Might be getting ahead of myself but could we be looking at the first actor playing James Bond to get a Oscar nom?
    @thelivingroyale, I certainly hope they don't even think about this. I don't see it happening either, given what Bond represents in the context of the very sensitive political climate we are in right now. The Academy is reeling from a recent expulsion after all.

    They should just make a decent film and leave any hopes of acting nominations alone.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think they should make a film solely to win awards, but I do think that in the last few years there seems to have been a trend forming of traditionally campy/popcorny franchises and genre doing well enough to force the Academy to take notice. I was so happy to see Stallone nominated for Creed for example. Brilliant actor, especially when it comes to Rocky, but the Rambo sequels and the other action films he's done have meant he was seen as a bit of a joke. But Creed (unlike say Rocky Balboa, which deserved a lot more praise and attention than it got) was a big enough hit to transcend the images people had in their minds of 80s montages and Stallone machine gunning loads of people. I think if Bond 25 is good enough then the same could happen with Bond. They already came really close with CR and SF but I think that with the story they've set up now, there's so much potential for Craig to really show what a good dramatic actor he is.
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker

    Do you really think they would have hired someone with his face if they had wanted to stay on the old track? If anything Craigs face screams "realism!" Not suave playboy the sixth
    Also, I remember an interview with him long before casino royale it was released where he was asked what he did when he got to the new James Bond. He said it was on the cell phone while he was on the go and the next thing he did was going to pop ordering a beer and thinking this might be the last time that he was able to do so. So if seems he was told they take him not that he told EON he was willing to do the job. Of course he wanted the job. He knew that it would make him rich beyond belief. Something he realistically couldn't expect otherwise from his career.
    . He Said no the Time he was asked because no script could be shown. They Developed that and got into further talk After that. WE Know, he was Not Wanted by everybody, so of course, there were discussions, which BB won, so she called him. But he did have the Guts to say No when there wasnt a dezent Script, showing what Kind of Bond they Wanted him to Play. So, Money or Not, he wasnt for Säle just because it was Bond.

    Whom exactly do we know who was actually at the negotiation table? To me this all mostly is a myth. Just like to notion that Craig wants and demands sophisticated scripts. After all this is a man that starred in a movie called cowboys and aliens! Need I really say more?
    If so I also could refer to his last two Bond movies which arguably are the most logic lacking in the history of a franchise that's known not to be for nitpickers.

    Blowing hot air. Remind you Craig is the only Bond with Production credits for a reason, he has input in everything..Story, Wardrobe and brought A list friends to the table. He bought in to it and has made the gig his own. You then made a daft comment about Craig's face. About 90% of the female population find him sexy. He's been dubbed a modern day Steve Mcqueen. He is not a pretty boy his appeal is rugged. A bit like the character Fleming created and intended Bond to be.

    Slim build; a three-inch long, thin vertical scar on his right cheek; blue-grey eyes; a "cruel" mouth".

    If they had given Craig dark hair he would look like Connery http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4775/4130/1600/CraigInfamousDarkHair.jpg

    This is not about sexy (even though I doubt that it's 90% of the female population that find him sexy ).I wrote that his face rather screams realism than escapism. Let me quote the German magazine Der Spiegel " he looks like a boxer who lost more fights than he won".
    Again, it simply flies in the face of logic to assume that they would have asked him in the first place if they had wanted to stay on the old track.

    Sorry I must have missed that edition of Derby Spiegel that authority on Bond magazine.
    !

    Show me one comment about him before he was famous for being James Bond that related to his good looks and sexiness. I can still quite well remember what I heard people saying about him. No matter if they were men or women.
    Also, I can still very well remember what women said when Brosnan was announced as Bond.
    Talking about contrast!
    Sleep well yourself.

    Were you around when CR came out? The scene at the beach was one of the big talking points. Brosnan is definitely more handsome than Craig and I'm sure a lot of women prefer him but CR was the first time I can remember where the main point of sex appeal people were talking about seemed to come from James Bond himself rather than the women. Now he's obviously aged quite a bit since and can't bulk up that way again, but at the time there was a lot of buzz around Craig's sex appeal when the film came out (emphasis on when the film came out, I know that when he turned up to the press conference with that terrible haircut there was a lot of backlash).

    The key word in my comment was "before". Also, I find it very telling that Craig is the first bond actor who had to bulk up substantially for the role. With all the other Bonds no one even bothered to mention their built.

    He didn't have to, he chose to and said so in interviews at the time. Watch Layer Cake and he looks more fit there before the bulk up for CR than any of the other Bonds, save maybe for early Connery.

    Brosnan got plenty of criticism from fans and a few critics that he was too skinny after GE came out.
  • Posts: 1,162
    BT3366 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Might be getting ahead of myself but could we be looking at the first actor playing James Bond to get a Oscar nom?
    @thelivingroyale, I certainly hope they don't even think about this. I don't see it happening either, given what Bond represents in the context of the very sensitive political climate we are in right now. The Academy is reeling from a recent expulsion after all.

    They should just make a decent film and leave any hopes of acting nominations alone.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think they should make a film solely to win awards, but I do think that in the last few years there seems to have been a trend forming of traditionally campy/popcorny franchises and genre doing well enough to force the Academy to take notice. I was so happy to see Stallone nominated for Creed for example. Brilliant actor, especially when it comes to Rocky, but the Rambo sequels and the other action films he's done have meant he was seen as a bit of a joke. But Creed (unlike say Rocky Balboa, which deserved a lot more praise and attention than it got) was a big enough hit to transcend the images people had in their minds of 80s montages and Stallone machine gunning loads of people. I think if Bond 25 is good enough then the same could happen with Bond. They already came really close with CR and SF but I think that with the story they've set up now, there's so much potential for Craig to really show what a good dramatic actor he is.
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker

    Do you really think they would have hired someone with his face if they had wanted to stay on the old track? If anything Craigs face screams "realism!" Not suave playboy the sixth
    Also, I remember an interview with him long before casino royale it was released where he was asked what he did when he got to the new James Bond. He said it was on the cell phone while he was on the go and the next thing he did was going to pop ordering a beer and thinking this might be the last time that he was able to do so. So if seems he was told they take him not that he told EON he was willing to do the job. Of course he wanted the job. He knew that it would make him rich beyond belief. Something he realistically couldn't expect otherwise from his career.
    . He Said no the Time he was asked because no script could be shown. They Developed that and got into further talk After that. WE Know, he was Not Wanted by everybody, so of course, there were discussions, which BB won, so she called him. But he did have the Guts to say No when there wasnt a dezent Script, showing what Kind of Bond they Wanted him to Play. So, Money or Not, he wasnt for Säle just because it was Bond.

    Whom exactly do we know who was actually at the negotiation table? To me this all mostly is a myth. Just like to notion that Craig wants and demands sophisticated scripts. After all this is a man that starred in a movie called cowboys and aliens! Need I really say more?
    If so I also could refer to his last two Bond movies which arguably are the most logic lacking in the history of a franchise that's known not to be for nitpickers.

    Blowing hot air. Remind you Craig is the only Bond with Production credits for a reason, he has input in everything..Story, Wardrobe and brought A list friends to the table. He bought in to it and has made the gig his own. You then made a daft comment about Craig's face. About 90% of the female population find him sexy. He's been dubbed a modern day Steve Mcqueen. He is not a pretty boy his appeal is rugged. A bit like the character Fleming created and intended Bond to be.

    Slim build; a three-inch long, thin vertical scar on his right cheek; blue-grey eyes; a "cruel" mouth".

    If they had given Craig dark hair he would look like Connery http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4775/4130/1600/CraigInfamousDarkHair.jpg

    This is not about sexy (even though I doubt that it's 90% of the female population that find him sexy ).I wrote that his face rather screams realism than escapism. Let me quote the German magazine Der Spiegel " he looks like a boxer who lost more fights than he won".
    Again, it simply flies in the face of logic to assume that they would have asked him in the first place if they had wanted to stay on the old track.

    Sorry I must have missed that edition of Derby Spiegel that authority on Bond magazine.
    !

    Show me one comment about him before he was famous for being James Bond that related to his good looks and sexiness. I can still quite well remember what I heard people saying about him. No matter if they were men or women.
    Also, I can still very well remember what women said when Brosnan was announced as Bond.
    Talking about contrast!
    Sleep well yourself.

    Were you around when CR came out? The scene at the beach was one of the big talking points. Brosnan is definitely more handsome than Craig and I'm sure a lot of women prefer him but CR was the first time I can remember where the main point of sex appeal people were talking about seemed to come from James Bond himself rather than the women. Now he's obviously aged quite a bit since and can't bulk up that way again, but at the time there was a lot of buzz around Craig's sex appeal when the film came out (emphasis on when the film came out, I know that when he turned up to the press conference with that terrible haircut there was a lot of backlash).

    The key word in my comment was "before". Also, I find it very telling that Craig is the first bond actor who had to bulk up substantially for the role. With all the other Bonds no one even bothered to mention their built.

    He didn't have to, he chose to and said so in interviews at the time. Watch Layer Cake and he looks more fit there before the bulk up for CR than any of the other Bonds, save maybe for early Connery.

    Brosnan got plenty of criticism from fans and a few critics that he was too skinny after GE came out.

    No he didn't. Campbell it is famously quoted with "I wanted him to look like someone who could kill"
    Brosnan by the way is still the actor who comes physically closest to Fleming's description of bond.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 12,837
    bondjames wrote: »
    Might be getting ahead of myself but could we be looking at the first actor playing James Bond to get a Oscar nom?
    @thelivingroyale, I certainly hope they don't even think about this. I don't see it happening either, given what Bond represents in the context of the very sensitive political climate we are in right now. The Academy is reeling from a recent expulsion after all.

    They should just make a decent film and leave any hopes of acting nominations alone.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think they should make a film solely to win awards, but I do think that in the last few years there seems to have been a trend forming of traditionally campy/popcorny franchises and genre doing well enough to force the Academy to take notice. I was so happy to see Stallone nominated for Creed for example. Brilliant actor, especially when it comes to Rocky, but the Rambo sequels and the other action films he's done have meant he was seen as a bit of a joke. But Creed (unlike say Rocky Balboa, which deserved a lot more praise and attention than it got) was a big enough hit to transcend the images people had in their minds of 80s montages and Stallone machine gunning loads of people. I think if Bond 25 is good enough then the same could happen with Bond. They already came really close with CR and SF but I think that with the story they've set up now, there's so much potential for Craig to really show what a good dramatic actor he is.
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Personally, Moore’s style fit the 70s but not the current years.. It would feel like a parody. I’m fine with them doing a 60s style Bond film copying the style of Connery’s films. Or better yet just mimick the style of Brosnan’s first 2-3 movies. Craig has his own unique style and it fits. They need to do something different though to stay fresh. Hopefully the next actor is good. I hope they don’t go the Netflix route or screw the franchise up by doing Spin offs like the reports a few months ago..

    Bonds evolves to fit it's audience of the time. The reboot in 2006 was to reclaim a more serious note with gauntlet laid down by Bourne. Perfect challenge for the franchise at the right time. Obtaining Casinos rights was also the perfect receipe. Dalton tried it in his tenure to match other action flicks with a serious edge. Brosnan admits himself beyond Goldeneye everything is a blur. He admitted himself he wished he had done things differently and had spoken up and had more input. Brosnan actually sounds jealous of what Craig has achieved but acknowedges the reasons why, that Craig demand it be done his way no pastiche, no invisible cars etc.

    But Brosnan was the victim of his time EON tried to mimic other popular films with technology at the forefront. Austin Powers also made things difficult. It was funnier to mock Bond elements than draw an audience to watch a spy thriller. This was 90's Brit pop age and like the 60's rock movement establishment was not cool. A government spy wasn't a cool thing. Very same reason why Lazenby quit. Lazenby got caught up with Rowan of radio Caroline which trapped George in a world of parties, drugs and free love. He convinced George to quit, cause playing a government killer was not groovy man!.

    If you want an indication of what comes after the Craig tenure look at what is going down well with the audience in the year prior. Because Bond will morph and reinvent to survive. Just like Madonna.

    Look at Babs comments. "Bond can't ever go back, it always has to move forward and evolve".

    So no retro reboot.

    The idea, that casino royale developed the way it did because Craig demanded it to me is completely ridiculous. They hired Craig because they wanted the way it developed.
    And they hired him because blonde heroes suddenly were all the rage. Personally I happen to think that it was not Bourne only, but especially the avent of 24 that forced them to react. Kiefer looked tough and menacing and what starring in an extremely thrilling show running on free TV every week. To me this is what really made them change direction. This and 9/11 of course.
    Also, Brosnan gave many interviews during the 90s in which he said that he hoped he could get the franchise in a more darker and realistic direction. He wasn't allowed but that's not his fault that's EON's fault.

    It's well documented Craig only agreed to come on board if the silly stuff wasn't going to feature. He had just worked with Spielberg on Munich to critical acclaim. To say he was hired cause he is blond is both ludicrous and ill-informed.

    As for the comments on Brosnan
    He opted, in the end, to “go with the flow”, and to “enjoy the great experience of traveling the world and being this character”.

    http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/pierce-brosnan/49217/pierce-brosnan-wished-his-bond-had-gone-darker

    Do you really think they would have hired someone with his face if they had wanted to stay on the old track? If anything Craigs face screams "realism!" Not suave playboy the sixth
    Also, I remember an interview with him long before casino royale it was released where he was asked what he did when he got to the new James Bond. He said it was on the cell phone while he was on the go and the next thing he did was going to pop ordering a beer and thinking this might be the last time that he was able to do so. So if seems he was told they take him not that he told EON he was willing to do the job. Of course he wanted the job. He knew that it would make him rich beyond belief. Something he realistically couldn't expect otherwise from his career.
    . He Said no the Time he was asked because no script could be shown. They Developed that and got into further talk After that. WE Know, he was Not Wanted by everybody, so of course, there were discussions, which BB won, so she called him. But he did have the Guts to say No when there wasnt a dezent Script, showing what Kind of Bond they Wanted him to Play. So, Money or Not, he wasnt for Säle just because it was Bond.

    Whom exactly do we know who was actually at the negotiation table? To me this all mostly is a myth. Just like to notion that Craig wants and demands sophisticated scripts. After all this is a man that starred in a movie called cowboys and aliens! Need I really say more?
    If so I also could refer to his last two Bond movies which arguably are the most logic lacking in the history of a franchise that's known not to be for nitpickers.

    Blowing hot air. Remind you Craig is the only Bond with Production credits for a reason, he has input in everything..Story, Wardrobe and brought A list friends to the table. He bought in to it and has made the gig his own. You then made a daft comment about Craig's face. About 90% of the female population find him sexy. He's been dubbed a modern day Steve Mcqueen. He is not a pretty boy his appeal is rugged. A bit like the character Fleming created and intended Bond to be.

    Slim build; a three-inch long, thin vertical scar on his right cheek; blue-grey eyes; a "cruel" mouth".

    If they had given Craig dark hair he would look like Connery http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4775/4130/1600/CraigInfamousDarkHair.jpg

    This is not about sexy (even though I doubt that it's 90% of the female population that find him sexy ).I wrote that his face rather screams realism than escapism. Let me quote the German magazine Der Spiegel " he looks like a boxer who lost more fights than he won".
    Again, it simply flies in the face of logic to assume that they would have asked him in the first place if they had wanted to stay on the old track.

    Sorry I must have missed that edition of Derby Spiegel that authority on Bond magazine.
    !

    Show me one comment about him before he was famous for being James Bond that related to his good looks and sexiness. I can still quite well remember what I heard people saying about him. No matter if they were men or women.
    Also, I can still very well remember what women said when Brosnan was announced as Bond.
    Talking about contrast!
    Sleep well yourself.

    Were you around when CR came out? The scene at the beach was one of the big talking points. Brosnan is definitely more handsome than Craig and I'm sure a lot of women prefer him but CR was the first time I can remember where the main point of sex appeal people were talking about seemed to come from James Bond himself rather than the women. Now he's obviously aged quite a bit since and can't bulk up that way again, but at the time there was a lot of buzz around Craig's sex appeal when the film came out (emphasis on when the film came out, I know that when he turned up to the press conference with that terrible haircut there was a lot of backlash).

    The key word in my comment was "before". Also, I find it very telling that Craig is the first bond actor who had to bulk up substantially for the role. With all the other Bonds no one even bothered to mention their built.

    I don't think it was a case of him having to bulk up because he wasn't handsome enough to win over women just with his face. I think that he wanted to because he felt that it fit his approach to the role.

    And it's hardly fair judging solely from before because he wasn't ready to play James Bond then. He still had a terrible haircut from some other film. He had to turn up to the press conference in a life jacket. The tabloids tore him to shreds to sell papers. Brosnan was very popular and still fresh in peoples minds. He didn't stand a chance after that first reveal and it isn't fair to judge the reaction to an actor before anyone has actually seen him in the role. Remember Moore had to lose weight and get a haircut before he filmed LALD.

    The point is that by the time Craig was actually playing James Bond, women found him attractive. It doesn't matter if he wasn't a sex symbol before James Bond because he wasn't James Bond then. He got the role and then got himself ready for the role. I don't get what your problem is.

    And people had definitely mentioned the build of Bond actors before. Just never in such a positive light. It was either nothing notable, or too fat. That Craig is the first Bond actor to actually get attention for his body is an achievement, not some sort of crux he had to rely on for sex appeal.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Keep in mind that Craig wasn't the first one to bulk up for a major role. Bale did it for BB in the prior year. Damon did it for Bourne. Willis did it for DH. etc. etc. Look at Affleck these days (he's blasting out of his shirts).

    He looked pretty good in Layer Cake but as we know he's quite a bit shorter than those who've come before, and so the bulking up for CR helped to make him look stronger and more substantial.
  • Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    Keep in mind that Craig wasn't the first one to bulk up for a major role. Bale did it for BB in the prior year. Damon did it for Bourne. Willis did it for DH. etc. etc. Look at Affleck these days (he's blasting out of his shirts).

    He looked pretty good in Layer Cake but as we know he's quite a bit shorter than those who've come before, and so the bulking up for CR helped to make him look stronger and more substantial.

    Still, I find it very telling. Let me stress that I found that his figure in Tom raider was absolutely perfect for a member of the Secret Service and especially for a former member of the SBS, so I personally was quite astonished when they had him bulk up so unrealistically. Because one thing is for sure: secret agents don't look like that. Just think how much time you need to keep that kind of body, let alone getting it.
  • Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    Keep in mind that Craig wasn't the first one to bulk up for a major role. Bale did it for BB in the prior year. Damon did it for Bourne. Willis did it for DH. etc. etc. Look at Affleck these days (he's blasting out of his shirts).

    He looked pretty good in Layer Cake but as we know he's quite a bit shorter than those who've come before, and so the bulking up for CR helped to make him look stronger and more substantial.

    Still, I find it very telling. Let me stress that I found that his figure in Tom raider was absolutely perfect for a member of the Secret Service and especially for a former member of the SBS, so I personally was quite astonished when they had him bulk up so unrealistically. Because one thing is for sure: secret agents don't look like that. Just think how much time you need to keep that kind of body, let alone getting it.

    Thats a valid point to be fair...that isnt how Bond is/was in the books of films.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    Keep in mind that Craig wasn't the first one to bulk up for a major role. Bale did it for BB in the prior year. Damon did it for Bourne. Willis did it for DH. etc. etc. Look at Affleck these days (he's blasting out of his shirts).

    He looked pretty good in Layer Cake but as we know he's quite a bit shorter than those who've come before, and so the bulking up for CR helped to make him look stronger and more substantial.

    Still, I find it very telling. Let me stress that I found that his figure in Tom raider was absolutely perfect for a member of the Secret Service and especially for a former member of the SBS, so I personally was quite astonished when they had him bulk up so unrealistically. Because one thing is for sure: secret agents don't look like that. Just think how much time you need to keep that kind of body, let alone getting it.

    Bond isn't a real secret agent. He's meant to have all eyes on him when he enters the room, the exact opposite of what a real secret agent is supposed to be. Spies don't actually drive around in bulletproof Aston Martins and nip to space and back either. It's a film. He bulked up to make the action more credible and to make people take Bond more seriously in the eyes of the competition. I don't think every Bond actor has to be that big (personally as long as he isn't a proper twig and we never get another Connery in DAF scenario I couldn't care less what sort of shape the actor is in) but I certainly don't see it as an issue.
  • Posts: 1,926
    BT3366 wrote: »
    [quote="noSolaceleft;799300
    No he didn't. Campbell it is famously quoted with "I wanted him to look like someone who could kill"
    Brosnan by the way is still the actor who comes physically closest to Fleming's description of bond.

    Your opinion on Brosnan. Dalton is mine. There are a number of people who think Brosnan was too much of a male model, hardly the Hoagy Carmichael resemblance Fleming described.
  • Posts: 1,162
    BT3366 wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    [quote="noSolaceleft;799300
    No he didn't. Campbell it is famously quoted with "I wanted him to look like someone who could kill"
    Brosnan by the way is still the actor who comes physically closest to Fleming's description of bond.

    Your opinion on Brosnan. Dalton is mine. There are a number of people who think Brosnan was too much of a male model, hardly the Hoagy Carmichael resemblance Fleming described.

    Let me quote a certain Vesper Lynd from casino royale "he looks like a movie star!"
  • Posts: 1,162
    bondjames wrote: »
    Keep in mind that Craig wasn't the first one to bulk up for a major role. Bale did it for BB in the prior year. Damon did it for Bourne. Willis did it for DH. etc. etc. Look at Affleck these days (he's blasting out of his shirts).

    He looked pretty good in Layer Cake but as we know he's quite a bit shorter than those who've come before, and so the bulking up for CR helped to make him look stronger and more substantial.

    Still, I find it very telling. Let me stress that I found that his figure in Tom raider was absolutely perfect for a member of the Secret Service and especially for a former member of the SBS, so I personally was quite astonished when they had him bulk up so unrealistically. Because one thing is for sure: secret agents don't look like that. Just think how much time you need to keep that kind of body, let alone getting it.

    Bond isn't a real secret agent. He's meant to have all eyes on him when he enters the room, the exact opposite of what a real secret agent is supposed to be. Spies don't actually drive around in bulletproof Aston Martins and nip to space and back either. It's a film. He bulked up to make the action more credible and to make people take Bond more seriously in the eyes of the competition. I don't think every Bond actor has to be that big (personally as long as he isn't a proper twig and we never get another Connery in DAF scenario I couldn't care less what sort of shape the actor is in) but I certainly don't see it as an issue.

    Fleming originally rejected that Connery on the premise that he was too muscular. Does this tell you something?
  • bondjames wrote: »
    Keep in mind that Craig wasn't the first one to bulk up for a major role. Bale did it for BB in the prior year. Damon did it for Bourne. Willis did it for DH. etc. etc. Look at Affleck these days (he's blasting out of his shirts).

    He looked pretty good in Layer Cake but as we know he's quite a bit shorter than those who've come before, and so the bulking up for CR helped to make him look stronger and more substantial.

    Still, I find it very telling. Let me stress that I found that his figure in Tom raider was absolutely perfect for a member of the Secret Service and especially for a former member of the SBS, so I personally was quite astonished when they had him bulk up so unrealistically. Because one thing is for sure: secret agents don't look like that. Just think how much time you need to keep that kind of body, let alone getting it.

    Bond isn't a real secret agent. He's meant to have all eyes on him when he enters the room, the exact opposite of what a real secret agent is supposed to be. Spies don't actually drive around in bulletproof Aston Martins and nip to space and back either. It's a film. He bulked up to make the action more credible and to make people take Bond more seriously in the eyes of the competition. I don't think every Bond actor has to be that big (personally as long as he isn't a proper twig and we never get another Connery in DAF scenario I couldn't care less what sort of shape the actor is in) but I certainly don't see it as an issue.

    Fleming originally rejected that Connery on the premise that he was too muscular. Does this tell you something?

    Doesn't that tell you something? Fleming was a snob. He didn't like Sean Connery, the definitive James Bond. I'm sure Fleming would have hated Craig's casting but he died decades ago and if the series had stuck solely to his vision it probably would have ended a long time ago. Don't get me wrong I love the books and I mean, he created Bond. He's a legend and by far the most important person in the history of the series. But Bond has evolved into a whole different beast since his day, so I don't think what he would have thought should the be all and end all.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    The male physique and health/lifestyles standards have also radically changed.
  • Posts: 1,926
    BT3366 wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    [quote="noSolaceleft;799300
    No he didn't. Campbell it is famously quoted with "I wanted him to look like someone who could kill"
    Brosnan by the way is still the actor who comes physically closest to Fleming's description of bond.

    Your opinion on Brosnan. Dalton is mine. There are a number of people who think Brosnan was too much of a male model, hardly the Hoagy Carmichael resemblance Fleming described.

    Let me quote a certain Vesper Lynd from casino royale "he looks like a movie star!"

    Let me quote a certain Vesper Lynd as written by Fleming, CR chapter 5: "He is very good-looking. He reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael,..."
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    yeah, but @BT3366 -- that's surely Timothy Dalton, no?
Sign In or Register to comment.