|
Post by Myrtle Groggins on Oct 13, 2005 20:27:34 GMT -5
I don't know, Ace. I think Eddie would have made a superb Bond compared to this loser. FYI, I voted against this guy in every poll. He has nothing on Pierce, except maybe that he's going to be the next Bond, but am I crazy to hope this is all a hoax and PB will still be the man? OK, I admit I must be missing a screw or something because I still want PB instead of anyone else. Chalk it up to being homeless for a month.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 13, 2005 20:32:11 GMT -5
True, at least Eddie G. had flair! I'd almost feel sorry for Craig and the backlash he's getting and will continue to get but not enough to wish for him to be Bond, or have the film Pierce wanted so badly all these years, or not to take some perverse glee in it all exploding in EON's collective face.
|
|
|
Post by Myrtle Groggins on Oct 13, 2005 21:49:05 GMT -5
Feel sorry for a guy who shouldn't have the part in the first place? For a guy who has no resemblance to the book Bond or any movie Bond? For a guy whose only attribute for the Bond role is that he has THE accent? Nope. No way. Not me. I can't feel sorry for him at all. He must know, when considering the part, that he isn't Bond material in any way, shape or form. He must know from the get-go that fans wouldn't accept him.
He doesn't have the right face!
|
|
|
Post by curious george on Oct 14, 2005 8:42:37 GMT -5
Well, they did it. Bozos. cg
|
|
|
Post by sparklingblue on Oct 14, 2005 9:11:27 GMT -5
So, you did it, EON. You wanna ruin the franchsise, go ahead. I have had enough. I will move on, like Pierce did. Thank you very much and Bye-bye.
|
|
|
Post by Barbara on Oct 14, 2005 12:20:09 GMT -5
I feel like throwing up, I really do. And this has nothing to do with the lousy weather we are having in NYC.
This has been a disaster from beginning to end. Of course, ultimately, this film is going to wind up being better than we think it is, because we all have this horrible scenarios in our heads. That being said, how much better can this film be, when they haven't even got the right body type in place to play the role.
When the raves come out for "The Matador" they will all be sorry!
Love...B
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 14, 2005 12:29:57 GMT -5
Raves are already coming in for Pierce in The Matador, and they're not sorry. They'll only be sorry if they don't make as much money with Craig. My bet is they won't even if the film is good (and Bond Begins with craggy Craig? LOL!). But who knows. All I know is that none of it will be my money. Even if the choice had been better (and aside from Pierce being the best there were other better choices than Craig) EON has killed off any enthusiasm I had for a new Bond film with all the weasley nasty unprofessional crap they've pulled.
Ace
|
|
|
Post by IcyCalm on Oct 14, 2005 13:44:39 GMT -5
OK, now I'm mad. MAD!!! Oh, I know, Pierce himself prepared us for this day, and much shame on the Broccoli's, but to add insult to injury, the bloody buggers at the Madame T's wax museum in London removed PB's figure today. Craig hasn't even made the bloody movie yet!!! Yahoo photos shows two flunkies unceremoniously manhandling PB (which is a damn good likeness of him, by the way), hauling him off to god knows where. One would have thought they'd have more class.
-IcyCalm no more.
|
|
|
Post by respectanimals on Oct 14, 2005 13:53:01 GMT -5
I second what Barbara said about feeling the need to throw up. I think the producers have gone nuts myself, but I guess time will tell. It doesn't surprise me in the least that they replaced Pierce, otherwise I don't think they would have treated him with the disrespect that they did when they let him go. They would have had to eat a lot of crow as they say in order to go back to him after ending the negotiations and saying goodbye like they did. They were willing to do just about anything previously to get Sean back however, so I was still hoping. What does surprise me is who they actually chose to replace him. I have nothing against Daniel Craig myself, but like everyone else, I just can't picture him as Bond. Not the Bond I like anyway (sorry, but I haven't read the books). And if they think the harder face is more like Sean Connery's in the first few films, I personally think Sean was actually more the pinup type when he first played Bond. It was his good looks and charm in Darby O'Gill that made Broccoli's wife suggest he was perfect for the role in the first place. Craig actually looks more like good casting for a villain to me, but I've only seen him in one film and I don't remember him very well. My guess is that like Timothy Dalton, his film will do just fine, but nothing up to the standards of Pierce's bond films. I just hope that Pierce doesn't start playing too many bad guys in a row in an attempt to shed the Bond image and prove what a great actor he is (a fact which of course those of us on this list anyway are already well aware of). I personally didn't become a fan of his due to Bond, but instead due to films like Laws of Attraction, After the Sunset and Evelyn. Even though his character sounds rather sleazy, I am very much looking forward to seeing The Matador as well, but I do hope he goes back to playing an occasional nice guy. I know I'm in the minority on this list, but I really did not like The Tailor of Panama, no matter how good people say his acting was. (duck)
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 14, 2005 14:06:02 GMT -5
CNN: Do you agree with the choice of Daniel Craig as the new ames Bond?Yes: 10% 12023 votes No: 34% 40463 votes Don't care: 56% 66905 votes Total: 119391 votes Well that's a resounding vote of confidence and interest! Two long time Bond experts and former Bond fan magazine editors weigh in and it's not much better: MTV: Daniel Craig Is Revealed As The New James Bond[/url] British Actor Daniel Craig Steps Into James Bond's Tux 'He's obviously not the best-looking actor in the world ' Bond fan-club founder Richard Schenkman says. Daniel Craig is unveiled as the new James Bond 007 at the HMS President, in London Connery, Moore, Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan ... and Craig? The newest James Bond has been announced in a high-profile public ceremony, ending three years of intense speculation and leaving fans all over the world shaken — and more than a bit stirred. After emerging into the world's spotlight riding shotgun on a British military boat along the Thames River (and wearing a very un-Bond-like life jacket), Craig flashed a brooding grin for an army of photographers Friday "It is a huge iconic figure in movie history, and those things don't come along very often," the star commented to The Associated Press in regards to the grueling interview process. "It was difficult [to decide], but I tried to think about [Bond] like any other job. We have got an incredible script, and that is my first line of attack. Once I read it, I knew I did not have any choice. ... It is a huge challenge, and I think life is about challenges." Craig, a 37-year-old British actor whose wide-ranging résumé includes turns in "Road to Perdition," "The Jacket" and the recent thriller "Layer Cake," will step into 007's trademark tux with nearly 30 films behind him. His profile will undoubtedly continue to grow in the next several years, as his Bond appointment joins an already impressive list of upcoming projects including Steven Spielberg's "Munich," Nicole Kidman's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" remake, "The Visiting," and Gwyneth Paltrow's Truman Capote drama, "Have You Heard?" Immediately following the official announcement that Craig would be earning his license to kill in the 21st Bond film, "Casino Royale," longtime devotees of the franchise buzzed with an equal mixture of anticipation and frustration. "He isn't the sort of person that I see as being the Bond that the general public has become used to," offered Graham Rye, editor/designer/publisher and founder of the 25-year-old publication 007 Magazine. "[Bond is] a wise-cracking guy who can kill any number of bad guys and bed any number of luscious ladies, but has always got a quip on the end of it. He's not the type to be very serious." "He's obviously not the best-looking actor in the world," Richard Schenkman, an independent filmmaker who founded the world's first James Bond fan club in the 1970s and published the 007 magazine Bondage for two decades, said of Craig. Like Rye, Schenkman feels that the new actor's appointment is worrisome since he comes from so far outside the Bond mold; he did admit, however, that certain aspects of the appointment intrigue him. "They've gone a Timothy Dalton-route, hiring a solid actor, a guy with a really solid career and an enormous amount of range," Schenkman observed. "Remember, he played a weasely American in 'Road to Perdition,' and a babbling lunatic in 'The Jacket.' ... It's an interesting choice, because [Bond producers] went very pretty with Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, and even to a degree George Lazenby, because he was a professional model at the time they hired him to be Bond. ... This guy's ruggedly handsome; it's just that he's not a looker." Both Rye and Schenkman agreed that hardcore Bond fans have recently felt as unappreciated as an anonymous SPECTRE henchman, beaten down by a series of Brosnan films that enjoyed enormous box-office success while making the franchise louder, dumber and more generic. "The scripts of the last few Bond movies have been absolutely abysmal," Rye fumed. "The last film, [2002's] 'Die Another Day,' regardless of how much money it made ... I think was the worst Bond film of the entire series." "The problem is that they really got into the 'top this' game," Schenkman lamented. "What can we do next? How can we top this?" "From already reading stuff on Web sites all over the Internet, I think [Craig] is going to fall into two camps," Rye speculated. "There's going to be one set of people who will throw their hands up in the air and say, 'Oh my God, not this guy. Please, anybody but him.' And a second group will say, 'This is just what these films need, a harder edge and a harder-looking actor." Remaining as optimistic as their hero when inevitably tied to a death machine, both men view Craig as a possible olive branch from longtime gatekeepers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, who may finally be willing to lose the gloss and return to the basics of the original Ian Fleming source novels. "I can't imagine for one moment that they would actually have Daniel Craig being a full-on blond James Bond," Rye insisted, slamming the media ballyhoo over the actor's natural differences from his predecessors. "Like for many other roles he's already played, he'll most certainly have his hair dyed black." "It would seem to be an indication that they intend to get grittier and dirtier, but I don't trust them," Schenkman barked. "Michael Wilson really thinks he knows what's best. ... Until he's decided to make a complete change from what he was doing before, you're not going to see it, no matter who they hire." "['Casino Royale'] is really the arc in which he becomes Bond," director Martin Campbell (who also directed 1995's "GoldenEye") said after the Craig announcement. "He starts out just having earned his double-0 stripes, and comes out at the end the Bond we know and love." The director also added that the movie will be "tougher and grittier" with "more character and less gadgets," all of which is music to the ears of Bond fans. "When the 'XXX' movies are being made, Bond can either lump himself in with that kind of filmmaking, or go the other direction," Schenkman urged Campbell. "Go back to 'From Russia With Love,' go back to the books. The fact that they're doing 'Casino Royale' is potentially very interesting, because the climax of [the 1953 novel] 'Casino Royale' is Bond being tortured, nearly to death, via his testicles. ... It's basically a game of cat-and-mouse between Bond and this double agent with a gambling addiction, and Bond has to outdo him at the baccarat table." "Is it going to be a cat-and-mouse game?" Schenkman wondered of the movie plot point that could very well define Craig's tenure. "Or is [the villain] going to have 47 nuclear bombs around the world in silos, aimed at all the world's capitals?" "If you're a Bond fan of any sort, you're going to be interested," Rye conceded. "It's something that gets into your blood, and you just have to see what happens next." These two lifelong fans ultimately admitted that they'll likely see "Casino Royale" during its opening weekend in 2006, and they then agreed to participate in a Bond game as timeless as the counting of his conquests. So, we asked them, how many movies will Daniel Craig make before they move on to the next guy? "I say two," Schenkman offered. "If, after they've gone to the cinema and they've seen it, [audience members] think 'I much preferred Pierce Brosnan, or anyone else for that matter,' it could be the kiss of death," Rye speculated, saying that Craig may end up a one-timer. "It could be the case." According to the consensus worldwide, there will never be another Connery, another Moore, or even another Pierce Brosnan. Then again, if there's one thing Bond fans know all too well, it's to never say never again. Check out our feature "Saving Agent Bond" for 007 ways to revive the long-running franchise. Visit Movies on MTV.com for more from Hollywood, including news, interviews, trailers and more. — Larry Carroll
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 14, 2005 14:07:22 GMT -5
Yes I saw that pic and was rather confused since it's reportedly one of their most popular exhibits and it's not as if Connery isn't still there. I wonder if someone requested the removal. Or maybe they're afraid someone going through Brosnan Bond withdrawl would try and abscond with it. But if they don't want it anymore they can mail it to me!
|
|
|
Post by sparklingblue on Oct 14, 2005 16:34:13 GMT -5
The nerve of this people! Carrying dear Pierce out like that! >:-( It's a disgrace. They can send the figure to me too. I'm personally acquainted with it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Lauryn on Oct 14, 2005 18:56:17 GMT -5
True, at least Eddie G. had flair! I'd almost feel sorry for Craig and the backlash he's getting and will continue to get but not enough to wish for him to be Bond, or have the film Pierce wanted so badly all these years, or not to take some perverse glee in it all exploding in EON's collective face. You do feel inclined to pray that Daniel Craig's mum stays blissfully unaware of all the controversy over her offspring's looks; on the other hand, it's called acting, dear boy, that's the way you'll always be judged -- as Craig well knows -- and it cuts both ways. Brosnan could easily dash off a book called "Why I Wish I Was Daniel Craig" about all the times he's been passed over for a plum role for being too "pretty" or been dismissed as an acting lightweight because of the symmetry of his face. If Daniel Craig is bent on transitioning to leading man status he couldn't have picked a more Darwinian environment than a franchise with over forty years of movie history and a central character that is an icon of masculine superiority and vicarious living. What worries me about it all is how Bond may have to change to suit him, because there's only so much they can do the other way 'round. Craig's attractiveness can seesaw rather dangerously, depending on the camera angle. Whomever is going to light him and lens him had best be able to do some fancy footwork. As for his assets, I don't mind Bond having edge, steeliness, or grit; but hard men and natural born killers are a dime a dozen in the movies. If you don't blend the cocktail with the more singular elements: Bond's class, his grace under pressure, his very particular tastes, his sophistication -- and his good looks -- I first discovered I had hormones by watching Sean Connery in Thunderball -- it's just Bond with the martini glass half full. Craig is very solid technically as an actor and he does have range. He's more diverse than some who have been touted for Bond like Clive Owen, especially vocally. He could probably act the part in the main (though I wish he were more cosmopolitan) but he's doomed to fall short (and not just in looks) as a predatory alpha male, with the ease of sexual conquest that began with Connery. And we'd all hate for that to change. Maybe "Layer Cake" is different but I've only seen DC romantically in "Sylvia" where he plays Ted Hughes to Gwenneth Paltrow's Sylvia Plath. Trust me, they generated no heat whatsoever; the real-life Hughes was a seducer and a man of many passions, all rather close to the surface and that all went missing from the performance. I think it goes a bit against DC's grain as an actor (as well as his look) to play things iconically and larger than life. Not to strain the point, but he was barely taller than Gwennie, too. In "Tomb Raider" he didn't register with me at all, or with Ace either, and it's a bit worrying from the Bond producers' standpoint that he does a fadeout in a loud, unsubtle pyrotechnic action film, because that's essentially what he'd be served up in as Bond unless they change their spots. Maybe they are, with an Oscar winning screenwriter that PB never managed to rate, etc. to cushion Craig with a stronger film as was done with Lazenby (who had a serious acting rather than an image deficit). If the current team can do as well as OHMSS, I'd be staggered, even considering that film has the dreaded kiddie Christmas chorus in its debit column <wink to Ace>. Craig did win some points with me at the press conference by naming Diana Rigg as his favorite Bond girl and saying he'd have "large shoes to fill" after Pierce. He meant it nicely but it just brings the point home that PB will never get CR to crown his Bond career. Ah well, they'd probably muck it up anyway. The Borgias didn't mention Brosnan once, not that I expected them to.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 14, 2005 19:31:00 GMT -5
Craig said he talked with Pierce who encouraged him and told him to go for it. Maybe they talked at the GQ Awards. But all that says is that Pierce has class and we already knew that. But it was nice of Craig to graciously mention Pierce, especially since he's the only one who did or has over the last year plus. The continued deafening silence from the Borgias also tells us what we already knew. Though they even surprised me by having the absolute nerve to say Casino Royale was always a film they wanted to make. They did, did they? I'm still trying to figure out how Craig rates an A list screenwriter and the last unused book when PB who begged for both got squat. At least he didn't get an A-List director. I can't believe Campbell said that in the script they might find out how Bond got his Aston Martin. Um... he might want to rent Goldfinger when Q gives it to him! Idiot. And he's still nattering on about this being a first mission shaping Bond --with Craig as a 00 rookie -- when he looks older now than any other Bond looked in their first film (and some of their last films). I think Campbell is still in denial that he didn't get his 28 yr old fresh face he could mold. Word is they were going tooth and nail about Bond through the weekend during this last Bond "summit" with Sony and finally decided on Craig. Or basically finally knuckled under to Mdm Borgia. And yes there's a lot of hooey being tossed around that Craig will be harder Bond because he's not handsome -- homely doesn't equate with tough it's just homely. They're of course the same ones upset when others point out that Craig does not fit the Bond model of dashing tall dark and handsome looks -- then it's the refrain of what's looks got to do with anything. But as you said, actors are judged on their looks all the time, whether they're dismissed because they're too good looking or discounted because they're not good looking enough -- or just don't look the right way. At least he sounds better than Owen, he has a good voice. Too bad film is also a visual medium. Aside from looks though I've yet to see any charisma, sex appeal wit, style, or cosmopolitan flair in any of Craig's work. He's a good character actor but that doesn't make him an ideal leading man.
|
|
|
Post by IcyCalm on Oct 14, 2005 21:25:40 GMT -5
Today's spectacle of new Bond Craig riding the military craft down the river Thames: tell me ... what vision does that call to mind? Thats right: PIERCE. As the PROPER Bond, piloting his own craft, at excessive speed, down the same river in the TWINE opener. What a self-defeating stunt. On tonight's "Countdown with Keith Obermann", Keith noted this new guy being lamely touted - in his life jacket? "Give him a parasol, why don't you?" he said. Bless you, Keith.
Just as OUR Barbara said: a disaster from start to finish. I couldn't be more thrilled. Craig's just an actor trying to make a living, but I want justice done to the Brocolli's for their cruelty to Pierce, and to Sony for their lack of backbone. Everything I read, saw, and heard today was negative about this announcement. Hell, it was negative for over a year now. It won't work, Borgias. Only 1% of marriages that start out in adultry are successful.
IcyCalm
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 14, 2005 22:06:08 GMT -5
LOL on Oberman's on target remark!
The lifejacket was very unfortunate. It was probably required but if so they should have done without that idea for an entrance at all. It ranks up there with Michael Dukakis and the helmet. It was doubly unfortunate that his arrival on the Thames conjured up an unflattering comparison to Pierce in TWINE. So much of this has been bungled as far as publicity and public realtions that it shouldn't be that surprising anymore, and yet it still is.
Ace
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 15, 2005 9:41:06 GMT -5
Finally some word from on top and yet still -- note --no thanks or appreciation from EON and that last line from Amy Pascal -- quick somone tell Sean Connery he's a shrimp! NY Times: Bond Franchise Is Shaken and StirredBy SHARON WAXMAN Published: October 15, 2005 LOS ANGELES, Oct. 14 - The new James Bond is blond. Rough trade, with a pale, flattened face and large, fleshy ears. Accent: well, it ain't Oxbridge. By the time Daniel Craig came churning up the Thames in a power boat for Friday's official announcement in London that he had been cast as Agent 007, much of the world was already in the know. The mystery in the selection of this 37-year-old actor, who had cleaned up nicely in a blue suit and red tie, was why it had taken so long. The extravagance of the media event belied many months of maneuvering and worry, in which the longtime guardian of the Bond franchise, Barbara Broccoli, and the brand-new distributor of Bond movies, Sony's Columbia Pictures, struggled to settle on a leading actor who could make the series younger, darker and more hip. The search took close to 2 years and considered some 200 actors on 3 continents. "I was desperately afraid, and Barbara was desperately afraid, we would go downhill," said Michael G. Wilson, the producer of the new Bond film, "Casino Royale," with Ms. Broccoli. He even told that to Pierce Brosnan, the suave James Bond who had a successful run of four films, he said. "We are running out of energy, mental energy," Mr. Wilson recalled saying. "We need to generate something new, for ourselves." Like much in Hollywood today, the choice of Mr. Craig came about partly because of a shift in the leisure habits of young men, who used to be the most avid moviegoing audience but have been migrating to other interests. In the late 1990's, market research showed Bond movies to have the oldest demographic of any action-adventure series. Lately, however, the booming success of Bond video games has driven a younger audience to the movies, Mr. Wilson said - which Sony and the producers do not want to disappoint. Hence the decision to move on from Mr. Brosnan toward a rangy, kinetic actor like Mr. Craig, who played a cocaine dealer in this year's indie crime thriller "Layer Cake" and the creepy son of Paul Newman, Irish crime boss, in "Road to Perdition" in 2002. The director of "Casino Royale," Martin Campbell, promised at the news conference that it would have "more character, less gadgets" than other Bond films. But will audiences embrace a rougher-hewn Bond? Mr. Craig becomes the sixth actor to take on the role since 1962, after Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Mr. Brosnan. Mr. Brosnan, 52, has been one of the more successful incarnations of the spy, starring in recent hit films, including "Die Another Day," which took in $431 million at the box office worldwide. News reports said Mr. Brosnan priced himself out of a sequel when he demanded a hefty raise to about $40 million to do the next film, which would have included a percentage of the box-office revenue. Mr. Brosnan continued to lobby publicly for the role, and as recently as a week ago told The San Francisco Chronicle he was still available. But Mr. Wilson said the decision did not have to do with money. "If we wanted to make a deal, we would've made a deal with Pierce at some financially viable level," he said. "This was about us trying to find new inspiration for the series." Other impediments slowed down matters, primarily the sale of MGM, which had produced and distributed all the Broccoli-produced Bond movies, to a consortium of investors led by Sony. The film, initially scheduled for release in November of this year, was postponed with the sale. Casting, which had already been going on in London, then had to be re-examined when MGM came under the aegis of Sony's Columbia Pictures and the Sony motion picture group's chief executive, Amy Pascal. According to several executives involved in the project, Ms. Broccoli had already settled on Mr. Craig by April. But by the summer, Ms. Pascal wanted to begin a more exhaustive search that would include other, younger actors. Eventually, some 200 actors from throughout the British Commonwealth came up for discussion, Mr. Wilson said. They included well-known faces, among them Colin Farrell, Orlando Bloom and Clive Owen. And they included many unknowns. Those who rated screen tests included the British actor Henry Cavill, the Australians Alex O'Lachlan and Sam Worthington, and the Croatian-born Goran Visnjic. It was only after all these ruminations that the producers and Sony finally settled on Mr. Craig. "I think that he has a kind of intensity, and a sexuality, and a roguishness," Ms. Pascal said. "And he seems like he could be a spy." For both Ms. Broccoli and Sony, executives said, the model was Jason Bourne, the character Matt Damon successfully incarnated in two gritty spy movies for Universal Pictures, "The Bourne Identity" and "The Bourne Supremacy." But the producers and Sony are well aware that they are tinkering with one of Hollywood's most lucrative franchises, one that has generated an estimated $4 billion in ticket sales over more than four decades. It is MGM's most important film property and a legacy carefully guarded by Ms. Broccoli, whose father, Albert R. Broccoli, initiated the movie series, based on the books by Ian Fleming, in 1962 with "Dr. No." "Casino Royale" - also the subject of a spoof Bond movie in 1967 - was the very first Bond novel. Ms. Broccoli gained the rights to it in 2001 in the wake of a legal battle. Bond fans quickly reminded the producers on Friday just how risky their decision to shift direction might be, and that "dark" and "hip" were far from what they imagined as the shaken-not-stirred polish of the James Bond character. Moments after the announcement, one fan wrote on the Web site Absolutely James Bond (www.ajb007.com): "My god, don't the producers have any brains? Craig is not Bond material. Bond must be tall, dark and handsome. Or at least two of the three, and he isn't even one!" Ms. Pascal said fans would have to wait to see the movie before judging Mr. Craig. As for the online criticism, she observed: "Well, he is tall. He's the same size as Sean Connery."
|
|
|
Post by Barbara on Oct 15, 2005 10:04:57 GMT -5
You know, when I saw Craig coming on board with that thing around his neck, I thought someone had given him a Hawaiian lai for good luck. But a life vest? ? COME ON! What kind of a PR disaster was that! I knew there was a reason I love Keith Oberman. ;-) Equally entertaining to me was that at least one entertainment news show had the announcement as the THIRD story, behind Sienna Miller and Jude Law's latest public outing. Kind of puts it all in perspective doesn't it. Love...B PS: Nice how they mention Ms Pascal, who is probably with the same group who said, not three weeks ago, that it would "Probably be Pierce." Does anyone recall if that press release released yesterday included both Eon AND Sony? Or could Monday make for a very interesting day?
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 15, 2005 10:20:25 GMT -5
Considering the article says that Babs Borgia wanted Craig as far back as April and that Pascal insisted on a larger search of over 200 guys how can she even possibly pretend to be thrilled? He looks like a spy. What the hell does that mean when he doesn't look like BOND?
The idea that they're patterning Bond after Bourne who's a Bond wannabe -- and they admit it? Yikes! They say they're searching for the video game generation (a generation that actually grew up with Pierce's Bond and who go to his films and buy video games with his face on it) and they do this by hiring craggy 37 yr old Craig who won't look good on their merchandise? Uh huh. Oh and they do this by making a "gritty" Bond with no gadgets or explosions but a film that still for some unfathomable reason according to Wilson ysterday will cost over $100m and maybe more than DAD. It's been over a year making this new plan and yet none of the parties - company, producer, directors, writers, actor seem to be on the same page.
I think it does come down to EON being bored with success, with the same old same old. They were too scared to do something different with Pierce (Tarantino and CR) but wanted something different with a new guy. O.K. That makes sense. Not. Maybe they felt with Pierce's popularity as Bond it didn't matter what they did because the films would still be successful, so they wanted to try to stroke their egos with something new. Hence the desire for a Jinx film, and a year wasted on that which they don't mention in this article -- and when they didn't get that so they decided to reconstruct Bond from the ground up.
Bizarrely, they still don't all seem to agree on excatly what this new Bond will be except that it wil be blonde, not tall, craggy (hey even his long time friends call him Mr Potatohead. Note to Mr Craig -- get new friends who don't blab this to the press!) and and it won't have Q or Moneypenny.
Whatever.
At least this story proves as Pierce said
a) It wasn't about PB's salary. He wasn't being "greedy"
b) They were in a state of paralysis about what to do and how to continue
Ace
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Oct 15, 2005 12:19:42 GMT -5
From our c g (so all you blondes out there can blame her -- or better yet the political cartoonist. )
|
|