# Meet the new Bond



## RAXL (Jul 9, 2004)

This ****ing guy.

Daniel Craig.  

Casino Royale.  
Again.
How sad. It was horrid the first time. Can't see it being better now.:xbones:


----------



## claymud (Aug 21, 2005)

Now way! what happened to Peirc Bronsen, I thought he said he would do one more. The bytrayel!


----------



## RAXL (Jul 9, 2004)

The producers gave him the old "heave ho"


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

RAXL said:


> This ****ing guy.
> 
> Daniel Craig.
> 
> ...


Are you sure? It seems I read that he was a front runner yesterday. Did they make it official today then about this dude who will most likely go the way of George Lazenby after this sure to bomb Bond flick? I thought for certain that they would give Brosnan another chance myself.


----------



## death2u (May 16, 2004)

He was really good in Layer Cake.


----------



## RAXL (Jul 9, 2004)

Brosnan is apparently, officially O-U-T.

This clown is unofficialy, officially I-N.


----------



## dougspaulding (May 22, 2004)

Sean Connery was practically "unknown" when he got the part - had done a handful of bit parts in a few films and a little muscleman work - so I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this dude. He has a good look for the part. Thank the gods no more Brosnan - he was not as bad as Roger Moore, but almost! We haven't had a really good Bond since Timothy Dalton. Lazenby was wooden.

We'll see.


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

I totally disagree with you about Brosnan, and Roger Moore was much better than Dalton. How can you discount such great Bond films as *Live and Let Die, The Man With The Golden Gun* and possibly the best of the series, *The Spy Who loved Me?* As for Brosnan, *Golden Eye, Tomorrow Never Dies* and *Die Another Day* were excellent Bond films. Dalton's *The Living Daylights* was quite simply lukewarm and too drawn out to even be mildly entertaining while *License To Kill* was his best and still nowhere as good as the films I listed. I could be wrong, but there's no way that Daniel Craig is anywhere near the caliber of his predecessor, Pierce Brosnan. I think Broccoli's daughter must be hitting the crack pipe for choosing him over someone like Clive Owen who I think would have been a spectacular choice for 007. If Broccoli had been wanting "An unknown for the role" as she has recently stated, then why was Hugh Jackman FIRST OFFERED the part? I think they just simply didn't want to lose face again if another known actor like Owen or Eric Bana would have turned them down.

I'm with Raxl about their choice of what film to make this time around. A remake of *Casino Royale?* Blah!


----------



## dougspaulding (May 22, 2004)

Sinister said:


> How can you discount such great Bond films as *Live and Let Die, The Man With The Golden Gun* and possibly the best of the series, *The Spy Who loved Me?*


*

Those films were good in spite of Moore, not because of him.

By the way, "Goldfinger" was the best, followed by "Dr No". (IMO, that is)*


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

Whatever you say, chum. I doubt if Lazenby or Dalton would have been playing the roles in said films, they would have been anywhere near as good.


----------



## Mollins (Aug 16, 2005)

Meh, He seems OK to me, but I would have much rather had someone such as Mcregor in the role, I'm just goign to have to wait to see what the film is like though!


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

MacGregor is no better. He has all the spunk and personality of a wet paper bag. Ask yourself why they chose him to play the most humdrum character of the *Star Wars* series and then you'll understand why he couldn't pull off a role that requires at least some sort of facial expressions and charisma that should be mandatory to play Bond.


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

Well, it's official now: Craig is James Bond in *Casino Royale.* I just read it on _E! Online_ and to add insult to injury, there's no Q and no gadgets either. If I wasn't going to see this travesty before, I definitely am not now. Barbara Broccoli, you ****ing suck!


----------



## dougspaulding (May 22, 2004)

Blond. James Blond.

Ian Fleming's first-ever Bond novel, originally published in 1953, "Casino Royale" is one of the few Bond adventures not to feature the MI6 gadget-maker Q. 

Martin Campbell - who directed Brosnan's first Bond film, "GoldenEye," in 1995 - said the movie would be "tougher and grittier" than previous films, with "more character and less gadgets." He said the story would begin with Bond first becoming a "00" agent. (Sounds like "Batman Begins")

"It is really the arc in which he becomes Bond," Campbell said. "He starts out just having earned his double-0 stripes and comes out at the end the Bond we know and love."

"A lot of the embryonic Bond things will come out in the film - how he gets the Aston Martin, how he mixes a Martini."

"Casino Royale" is due to being filming in January in the Czech Republic, the Bahamas, Italy and at Pinewood Studios near London. Campbell said the budget likely will exceed $100 million.


Can't wait!


----------

