|
Post by sparklingblue on Nov 6, 2005 16:25:55 GMT -5
It really is like Murphy impersonating Remington Steele. We have nothing against the guy as such, but it still feels just wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Yuliya on Nov 7, 2005 10:24:34 GMT -5
Surely you aren't going to blame Bush for the unfortunate casting of the latest Bond?
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Nov 7, 2005 15:07:36 GMT -5
Surely you aren't going to blame Bush for the unfortunate casting of the latest Bond? No, he's just evidence of the lowering of standards. Ace
|
|
|
Post by Barbara on Nov 9, 2005 1:17:27 GMT -5
Speaking of lower standards....
If you wanna good laugh, go over to commanderbond.net and check out their list of folks who according to their sources (and I gotta admit, they have some pretty damn good sources), were on the list to be Bond.
I am particularly alarmed that Jax from "General Hospital" is on this list.
-- Barbara
|
|
|
Post by Lauryn on Nov 15, 2005 12:44:39 GMT -5
Thnks for the interesting article from the LA Times. It's great to see the lovely Mr. Montalban interviewed; the man has such inate class and elegance. There has been a death of debonair. "Debonair connotes a man of the world, a sophisticated person," says Montalban. "Bush is one of the guys." This is such an on point line and it's the problem with the new Bond casting. Bond is never suppossed to be "one of the guys", he's supposed to be a sophisticated man of the world. The problem isn't just in casting but highlighted by the fact that Texas Hold'em Poker is now replacing Baccarat as Bond's game of choice in Casino Royale. For all the talk about going back to Bond's roots the entire concept of the film seems to make Bond less of what he is and more like everyone else. Blech. My heartfelt thanks to respectanimals for spotting this lovely article. Not only is it praiseworthy by virtue of its subject, but, as we've all noticed, it's well timed. If there's not yet a death of debonair, there's certainly a dearth of it now that James Bond -- the court of last resort for its cinematic expression -- is taking an unlonged for turn for the spare and ordinary. I had the privilege of seeing Ricardo Montalban on stage in the mid-seventies as Don Juan in the "Don Juan in Hell" centerpiece of the G.B. Shaw play, "Man and Superman." I associated RM with roles in stuff I grew up on like Esther Williams movies and had not thought farther than that perception of him as a "lightweight." Don Juan's origins aside, I couldn't wrap my head around Montalban and this style of drama, but I was astounded at how good he was, not a false moment or mis-step, and how much new fire and spark there was in the language when it was spoken by a Latin (I'm not sure if Shaw would have quite realized it, LOL!) That extended third act in the play is a dream sequence, virtually all talk, the point and counterpoint of ideas among the three characters (The Devil, Don Juan, and Dona Anna). The production is usually mounted with minimal sets and staging (the actors can sit or stand). It's a master class on what an actor can do through the use of voice and presence, there being no other tricks available. Montalban, IMO, outshone Edward Mulhare and Myrna Loy (which if you know how I admire those two, took some doing). I got to meet him after the show and, drama geek that I was, I babbled something about how much I revered every line of the play and how supremely he did it justice. I was bowled over. He was as warm and gracious as I could have imagined, thanking me in that voice and listening patiently to all that gop. That news article is no lie; he's magnetic in the flesh, and when he concentrates on you it doubles it, LOL! He seemed very direct and open and without any fuss. I joked with him about learning all those long speeches -- how did he do it, and he said he thinking of them as musical phrasing made it easier: where to pause, where to vary the rhythm. I remember thinking that was apt since he'd cut his teeth on musicals in Hollywood and the principle's the same even if it's the Don Juan of Mozart that we're talking about in the play. GB Shaw, with his musical bent (he was a fine music as well drama critic) would have approved, I think. That was the gist of our conversation. I never expected to get more than an autograph so I floated away on a cloud. Sorry to go on so long but he made an impression on me when I was young and impressionable, LOL! If only there were more like him in the business now.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Nov 15, 2005 16:07:06 GMT -5
Lauryn, what a lovely experience. I'm sure he'd have made quite the impression even on someone not so young and impressionable. He's always come across as such a charismatic gentleman and my that voice and it's wonderful to hear that he doesn't dissapoint in the flesh.. It also makes it easier to admit I'd have fallen for Khan as well.
|
|
|
Post by Lauryn on Dec 6, 2005 0:24:04 GMT -5
There's little novelty left in citing yet another cold reception for Daniel Craig but this caught my eye, from sort of a Hollywood "Anti-Power" List: www.filmthreat.com/index.php?section=features&Id=1643 FILM THREAT'S FRIGID 50: THE COLDEST PEOPLE IN HOLLYWOOD 2005 (41-50) by the Film Threat Staff (2005-12-06)
At number 44: Daniel Craig
“My name is Blond… uh, Bond… uh, what am I doing here?” The long-in-the-tooth 007 series, which was showing signs of dry rot when Connery was still in the Astin-Martin, will hardly get a shot of relevance with this flyweight, arthouse Brit, who rose to popularity in Sundance hit Layer Cake, picking up the license to kill. C’mon, guys, it’s the 21st century – James Bond is as relevant as the hula-hoop, no matter who’s playing him. Anti-Freeze: How about casting Connery as Blofeld? Or Roger Moore in drag as Moneypenny? Is George Lazenby still alive?(or how about learning how to spell Aston-Martin?) Sure, it's full of the usual tired round of snark about the franchise being a dinosaur, de rigueur for any self respecting indie film site, but I thought Daniel Craig, as a supposed "anti-establishment" Bond, might have had a bit more immunity. It's going to be an even harder slog for him than I thought if even the indie press is inferring Bond should be cast more traditionally to type. And to top it he's a "flyweight" -- not exactly a vote of confidence that he's "big screen" enough for the job. This from journos pre-disposed to like actors who are "interesting" and "edgy" over the mainstream and who are usually delighted when they are cast against the odds.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Dec 6, 2005 15:17:00 GMT -5
There's little novelty left in citing yet another cold reception for Daniel Craig but this caught my eye, from sort of a Hollywood "Anti-Power" List: www.filmthreat.com/index.php?section=features&Id=1643 FILM THREAT'S FRIGID 50: THE COLDEST PEOPLE IN HOLLYWOOD 2005 (41-50) by the Film Threat Staff (2005-12-06)
At number 44: Daniel Craig
“My name is Blond… uh, Bond… uh, what am I doing here?” The long-in-the-tooth 007 series, which was showing signs of dry rot when Connery was still in the Astin-Martin, will hardly get a shot of relevance with this flyweight, arthouse Brit, who rose to popularity in Sundance hit Layer Cake, picking up the license to kill. C’mon, guys, it’s the 21st century – James Bond is as relevant as the hula-hoop, no matter who’s playing him. Anti-Freeze: How about casting Connery as Blofeld? Or Roger Moore in drag as Moneypenny? Is George Lazenby still alive?(or how about learning how to spell Aston-Martin?) Sure, it's full of the usual tired round of snark about the franchise being a dinosaur, de rigueur for any self respecting indie film site, but I thought Daniel Craig, as a supposed "anti-establishment" Bond, might have had a bit more immunity. It's going to be an even harder slog for him than I thought if even the indie press is inferring Bond should be cast more traditionally to type. And to top it he's a "flyweight" -- not exactly a vote of confidence that he's "big screen" enough for the job. This from journos pre-disposed to like actors who are "interesting" and "edgy" over the mainstream and who are usually delighted when they are cast against the odds. Yes the shots against Bond are expected, the placement of Craig on the Not Hot list for taking the role might even be expected -- but Film Threat-- the Indie Site-- referring to him as a "flyweight, arthouse Brit" --- OUCH.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Dec 6, 2005 18:18:35 GMT -5
I just read a blog about someone going to Madame Tussaud's last week and taking their photo with the PB figure. So I guess he was just moved and not sent to the basement or the furnace.
|
|
|
Post by sparklingblue on Dec 7, 2005 4:59:41 GMT -5
I just read a blog about someone going to Madame Tussaud's last week and taking their photo with the PB figure. So I guess he was just moved and not sent to the basement or the furnace. I'm relieved! They weren't as cruel to him as I thought they were going to be. Or maybe they just got too many requests of people like us who wanted to have the wax PB.
|
|
|
Post by curious george on Dec 9, 2005 0:37:26 GMT -5
I don't know. I think Kelly's Tommy doll might still be preferable.
:: snickers ::
cg
|
|
|
Post by Barbara on Dec 14, 2005 20:15:53 GMT -5
Anyone want to start the countdown to Craig's firing and Pierce's rehiring?
|
|
|
Post by Yuliya on Dec 14, 2005 20:29:34 GMT -5
-2316382... -2316383... -2316384...
|
|
|
Post by Barbara on Dec 15, 2005 1:41:26 GMT -5
Courage Yuliya. The guardian angel who brought the nomination will most certainly bring on Craig's demolition.
-- B
|
|
|
Post by Yuliya on Dec 15, 2005 10:35:35 GMT -5
That he (or she?) might. But as for PB's return... Can God create a rock even he can't lift?
|
|
|
Post by Barbara on Dec 15, 2005 17:32:41 GMT -5
Nothing is impossible with God, or Love.
-- B
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jan 22, 2006 20:04:08 GMT -5
It seems to be from one of the Brit tabloids so veracity might not be it's strong point but it made me laugh so I'm sharing. THE SUNDAY PEOPLE: SHOW BLITZ: Failing to Bond with 007 Daniel01/22/2006 06:19:27 AM EST IT seems the big execs behind the James Bond phenomenon could be in a spot of bother after ditching Pierce Brosnan for Daniel Craig. Shooting for the new movie starts on January 30, which gives them just seven days to find an actress to play the female lead. My spies tell me former 'Neighbour' Kimberley Davies and 'Species' actress Natasha Henstridge, pictured, have been screen testing with Daniel. But, better still, my spies overheard that it has been harder to find women willing to work with Daniel, but women were practically fighting for the role when Pierce was Bond. Copyright © 2006 . MGN Ltd.
|
|
|
Post by Yuliya on Jan 22, 2006 21:05:54 GMT -5
Right; who wants to be upstaged and outshined? Even Angelina Jolie and Charlize Theron reportedly dared not to take the chance.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jan 22, 2006 21:07:37 GMT -5
They're suppossed to start shooting Jan 30th and the have NO announced cast so far aside from Craig and Dame Judie. So maybe Dame Judi is playing all the other parts from LeChiffre to Mathis to Vesper to Felix. ;D
|
|
|
Post by sparklingblue on Jan 23, 2006 7:58:24 GMT -5
I feel such an uncharitable gloating fit coming on! And I'm not feeling guilty for it in the least. HAH!!
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|