James Bond 007 - Movie Thread

[Jellie]

Any 007 fans out there

Its been announced that Daniel Craig will be the next James Bond. I have seen him in a few films and i reckon he is well suited for the role.

So what do you guys think?

[Battle]

GREAT!

[Jellie]

Finally a response. Daniel is a blondie which is strange. Other than that I think its a good call for him to be 007. Pierce has had his time.

[TMLS]

I think it's going to be great if they're going to turn the Bond films serious - he should be perfect.

[Zungas]

Anything better than Die Another Day.

[k18]

I'm going to miss Pierce but it's time to pass on the torch. I haven't seen Daniel Craig in any films, but I did see how he looks like so I'm hoping he will do well.

[Relic]

I was hopeing for one more Pierce film, he just had this aura to him when he played bond.

Gonna be hard to replace

[j03superbat]

I've heard this news and I thought I was going to cry - Daniel Craig, IMO, does not look the part of 007. I suppose if he convincingly pulls off the role, my current hatred for him may die down... but otherwise, I'm bitter about the decision.

In fact, the news that has rolled in for "Casino Royale" has made me doubt the entire production. While I loved Martin Campbell's work on GoldenEye, I'm not exactly sure I'm comfortable with this "back-to-basics" Bond. It's not that I love the gadgets and the cars and the one-liners to the extent that I want the characters to suffer, but I liked Die Another Day and the world that it was setting up. Plus, this "Bond Begins" premise raises several other questions:

- Will Judi Dench return as 'M'?
- Will John Cleese return as 'Q'?
- Will 'Q' even be in the movie or will the few gadgets Bond does posess already be in his hands?
- Will the famous opening gun barrel sequence appear? (If it does, I hope they do without the CGI bullet)

The actress that played Moneypenny alongside Pierce Brosnan in the last four movies has stated that she will not return. I'm still angry that Pierce was not offered the role for a fifth time - and even more furious that no reason was publicly announced for why he was let go in the first place (before they knew they'd go in a "prequel" style direction).

Albert R. Broccoli always said, "Never look back" and they're going ahead and doing it anyway. A more character-driven movie would have been fine, but they didn't have to reach back into Bond's youth to tell the story... and even the decision for a more character-driven movie seems a bit dodgy because of comments by the producers, who say that the budget will be north of $100 million, have lots and lots of action, and off-handedly said it'd be harder to keep under budget than Die Another Day was.

Ultimately, I believe the Begins formula worked for Batman Begins because the Bat-franchise needed revamping - the Bond franchise could still be "salvaged".

Still, make no mistake that I am glad that the part of Bond has finally been cast and it'll be just over a year before we get to see Bond on screen again.

[Daphne]

I have never seen him act, but just by looks, I didn't think he fit the part. I guess time will tell.

[Metropolis Hero]

Don't know anything about the Daniel Craig. Saw a picture of him today...It will take a little bit of time for me to get use to James Bond having blonde hair....but I'll give him a chance to prove he can play the part of 007. I'm going to miss Pierce Bronsan but I wouldn't mind seeing the Bond movies turning a little more serious. And if Craig can do that....great!

[axisoftime]

To me the only true Bonds are Sean Connery and Roger Moore.
I couldnt get into Brosnan-Dalton or Lazenbe.I did read however that Craig said Sean Connery was the best Bond-so maybe theres hope!

[President_Luthor]

It sounds like this Craig dude will be playing a pre-007. This is James Bond just before he becomes a 00-agent. There's no Moneypenny, no Q. Almost like a prequel.

From what I've heard, it looks like 007 is precisely going about it like Batman Begins and starting with an origin-type flick.

Sean Connery always will be the iconic Bond. I'd rest my case on 'You Only Live Twice' alone. Roger Moore is a sentimental favourite for me just because he was the Bond I grew up with, though his later Bond flicks were actually cheesy in comparison to ...

Timothy Dalton. He was the first hardcore Bond who was deadly serious. He didn't really have cheesy one-liners. I'd recommend both 'The Living Daylights' and 'License to Kill'. Let's just say Dalton put the 'F' in BMF with his version of Bond. And, he was the Bond who went rogue and got his license revoked. He set the modern template for ...

Pierce Brosnan. His first Bond flick (Goldeneye - the flick started out with him battling Soviets ... how's that for 'old school' continuity :D) and his last one were my favourites. Probably the under-25 crowd see him as their iconic Bond and I can't blame them. He wanted to get out of his Remington Steele contract for a shot at playing Bond ... it might have been him instead of Dalton if his TV fans didn't write in to keep Steele on the air.

Craig is stepping into some pretty big shoes. It's a legacy and he'll have to live up to it. (I almost feel like I'm talking about SV's Clark becoming Superman ;) )

[Backward Galaxy]

From what I've heard, Dench and Cleese are both returning (they are supposedly writing Q a role). Samantha Bond will not be returning as Moneypenny, though. She has stated that she wouldn't do a 007 film without Pierce and she's also getting older anyway.

Personally, I don't understand why they didn't go with Pierce. I understand that they want to go with a younger and fresher version of Bond, but I don't understand why you can't just try to MAKE A GOOD MOVIE. Brosnan himself was championing for a change to this style of film, and they boot him?

Their were rumors he asked for 40mil. Since then, the powers that be have stated that whether or not that rumor was true, it's NOT why they didn't sign on Pierce. So, forget that.

A lot of people thought there needed to be changes in the Bond films... but let's face it, Pierce wasn't one of those things that needed to be changed. He made the last three films in the series watchable.

As far as Daniel Craig goes... I don't think he looks the part. I've never seen him act, though. I'm hoping he's good, but I'm not excited by this. I wanted to be able to see the "new guy" and go "Holy ****, he's perfect!". I didn't want to have to be won over. As it stands now, I have to be won over.

In the end, I'm not going to complain too much, though... At least they didn't go with Clive Owen. I would've had to boycott... not as a form of protest... more as a form of sparing myself 2 hours of the same exact facial expression and listening to that monotone voice of his.

[Bailey_Luthor]

NOOOO.... I like Sean Bean!!!!

[j03superbat]

Backward Galaxy, I agree with every one of your comments. But I haven't heard anything about Cleese coming back; I've only heard the producers explicitly say that he is not in the novel, and therefore won't be in the movie (bearing in mind that this is the producers who said this).

Out of all the candidates for the 6th James Bond, I was rooting for Goran Vsjinic or Julian McMahon (the latter severely less after watching Fantastic Four).

And then we got Daniel Craig. Do you feel my pain here?

[MyOwnSuperhero]

Personally, though I've loved Peirce Brosnan's work in the Bond films, I'm glad to see him go. It was starting to feel the way 'Diamonds are Forever' felt - Sean Connery was still the man, but he was the old and paunchy looking man. I spent most of 'Die Another Day' wondering if Peirce always looked so dang old. (I spent the rest of the movie trying to decide if Halle Berry's boobs suficiently made up for how irritating she was.)

Anyone got a picture of the new guy?

[j03superbat]

I'll be nice. Here's a pic of him in character:
http://ffmedia.ign.com/filmforce/image/article/658/658547/craig-bond1_1129321022-000.jpg
What worries me is that in the article (http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/658/658547p1.html) that the pic is from, it says that Craig noted that his hair might not be that dark in the film. I already don't like him - the least he could do is completely dye his blond hair (besides doing a good job in the role).

[axisoftime]

Yeh-What does that say when the best guy they can find is blond?So its gonna be kind of a prequel?That alone dosent sound good-as usually prequels dont do well.I actually have 'Casino Royal"-its kinda a fun movie-too bad Peter Sellers or David Niven arent around to do a cameo.

[Backward Galaxy]

Originally posted by j03superbat
Backward Galaxy, I agree with every one of your comments. But I haven't heard anything about Cleese coming back; I've only heard the producers explicitly say that he is not in the novel, and therefore won't be in the movie (bearing in mind that this is the producers who said this).

Out of all the candidates for the 6th James Bond, I was rooting for Goran Vsjinic or Julian McMahon (the latter severely less after watching Fantastic Four).

And then we got Daniel Craig. Do you feel my pain here?

I do feel your pain.

I was just over at CommanderBond and their roundup says that both Q and Moneypenny are probably out... but I distinctly remember reading an article (I think it was about Director Campbell) that said the screenwriters were adapting roles for the James Bond staple characters... aka Q, Moneypenny, M.

At this point, who knows?