theuofc

Hi, NellyB,

I agree about Lazenby. As an ex-male model, he was a gorgeous Bond but no fire. He also had athletic skills, but this was his first real role and without acting experience and/or lessons, I don't think his acting skills were ready for the big time. If memory serves me, Lazenby is the only Australian Bond we've had.

In some ways, he reminded me of a dark-haired version of his fellow countryman Rod Taylor. I much preferred Taylor who had a witty, sexy glint in his eye and was a combination of savvy intelligence and a healthy lust for life.

Best,

Barbara

DB7

Licensed to be killed off?
Bond fans are boycotting the new film Casino Royale because of Daniel Craig’s casting. Here, Caitlin Moran defends the new 007 while James Christopher argues that he lacks the X factor


FOR



I too, was anti-Craig until recently. But I am, above all else, a woman, and we always have to root for the underdog. And what else is Daniel Craig than the world’s highest-profile underdog?

Poor Daniel Craig! Look at what some of the people on this anti-Craig website have said about him: “Why chose this putridly ugly man as Bond?” “He looks like a charmless Big Issue vendor.” “The toughest job in Casino Royale will be Miss Moneypenny’s — pretending she fancies this Shrek-alike in a monkey suit.” Guys, he’s just an actor! He doesn’t actually have to seduce a series of Chechnyan hit-women to save the world.

Besides, they’ve got Craig all wrong. He isn’t some intense character actor with a wonky nose, miscast into one of the world’s stupidest movie franchises, and struggling with the day-to-day pressures of corporate imbecility. He’s a revolutionary! A maverick!

Even off-camera, he’s doing what the producers of the Bond franchise should have done aeons ago — updating the smug dandy Scotch arse.

Look at Craig’s Bond so far. His winning of the role is greeted with a worldwide series of sour editorials. Controversial! Like Pete Doherty. Then his appearance at the press conference is dominated by his monosyllabicism. Sulky! Like the streetwise youth of today. Then he apparently complained that the speedboat which dramatically bore him to the press conference had been driven “too fast,” and had made him feel queasy. Delicate!

As if this weren’t enough, when filming started, he had two front teeth knocked out during his first fight scene — something that, in Hollywood, makes him technically disabled. Look how modern hoary old James Bond suddenly seems before we’ve even seen a second of Craig’s finished product. He’s this misunderstood, fey, disabled city boy who has the tabloids constantly up in arms, merely for existing. Imagine what he’ll do when he finally gets his hands on a nice suit and a small nuclear capability...


Caitlin Moran

AGAINST

Poor old Bond. Once upon a time you were a handsome, swarthy Scot who could shake and stir a dry martini merely by looking at it. Now you’re a potato-faced blond who looks as if he pulls pints in the local Spread Eagle.

Have Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson finally lost their marbles? Of course they have. What on earth was wrong with Pierce Brosnan? He could be a little wooden for sure, but everyone and their mother loved him in the role. Not as much as Sean of course, but close enough to make the adventures of OO7 a mostly seamless watch.

At his first press conference as the new face of Britain’s most dashing licensee to kill, Daniel Craig argued: “It’s not a question of redefining [the franchise], but it’s a question of taking it somewhere else.”

Whither exactly, Daniel? Over a cliff? Bond is a highly specialised role. He needs class, muscles, and oodles of style. Most of all he needs sex appeal, and that’s precisely what Craig lacks. He is a fine actor given the right part and a pair of boxing gloves. But he lacks the crucial X factor: that aura that beams from Bond the moment he steps into a room. How will he handle the leggy babes in Casino Royale. On stilts? And judging his snogging skills with Rhys Ifans in Enduring Love, he might lack something in the boudoir department.

The evidence of the opinion polls is damning. Public support for Craig as the next secret agent is thin. Bond-lovers are despondent. Clive Owen and Colin Farrell have trumped Craig in media polls across the globe. He was always an outsider and that’s where he should have stayed.

He may have been fantastic in Our Friends in the North, but I can’t see this charm working across the velvet gambling tables of Casino Royale. What will he do to all those unsubtle innuendos? Craig doesn’t wear comedy lightly, and you need plenty to make these preposterous plots work.

And spare a thought for Miss Moneypenny. I doubt she would give Craig his P45 let alone a single one of her devastatingly saucy smiles.

nellybly

Here's the trivia for the three Casino Royale films (the first one was on TV starring Barry Nelson):

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310853/trivia http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061452/trivia http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/trivia

And a really neat site with lots of info and links about Fleming and Bond: http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/James_Bond

It mentions, on that page, that apparently Fleming felt Bond looked like Hoagy Carmichael. Oh, my! Well, then Daniel Craig fills the bill although the page says that Timothy Dalton came closest. I got interested in looking all this up because I just finished reading Sheridan Morley's biography of David Niven (the retired Sir James Bond of the 1967 strangeness). Niven had fallen into a habit of finding out when and where a movie was to be filmed and how much he was going to get paid and only then finding out anything about the script (if it indeed even existed by the time filming would start--problematic in the case of Casino Royale--10 writers, at the very least along with 5 directors).

It was a wonderful treat
To hear the patter of horsey feet.

Thanks For The Buggyride recorded by Percival Mackey

Phil Turner

As a fan of the old Bond movies, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that the top five Bond films (in terms of cinema attendances in Britain) starred Sean Connery and Roger Moore. I get slightly frustrated when inflationary ticket prices create a false impression of the success of recent blockbusters. Surely, the best measure of success is ticket sales NOT ticket prices.

According to the BFI, the 5 most watched Bond films in Britain (in terms of tickets sold) are:

Thunderball (approx 15.6 million);
Goldfinger (approx 13.9 million);
The Spy Who Loved Me (approx 12.4 million);
Moonraker (approx 9.4 million); and
Live and Let Die (approx 9 million).

Although Pierce Brosnan was clearly successful in the role, I was never a fan. I hope that Daniel Craig is now given the opportunity to establish himself in the part.

Phil Turner

samkydd

I was disappointed in the last Bond because of the pathetic CG and the very weak story and plot, and the more blatant than usual cashing-in-on-the-brand attitude of the film maker. The next one I won't bother going to see no matter who plays Bond because it's bound to be the same slip-shod effort, and besides, it'll be repeated ad nauseum on the box over the coming years.

I'm all for killing off TV series and film characters before they start to bore you to death, and it's either the cynical familiarity sells rip-off approach that keeps such things being repeated, or the complete lack of original ideas and creativity in the industry through reliance on people with gilt-edged film school diplomas rather than talent!

"...the chairman of Littlewoods stores made a Keynote speech!"

Ambrosia

Hasent the Bond thing gone on enough its becoming a religion, first ritual is the Bond film at christmas then the new bond film and then the new actor I'm bored with the tired old formula. Havent we grown beyond it now and hasent it had its day for good or ill?

It is cruel to discover one's mediocrity only when it is too late.

Wolfgang

Obviously not from how much money they make. Bond is reinvented for every generation and its current fans seem to want all that CGI crap. Brosnan's films were performing strongly and he wanted to do another so I do not know what their problem is. I think they have got over-excited at finally getting their hands on Casino Royale and have rushed into relaunching Bond. I am all for it if they are going to seriously adapt it but I am surprised they are changing their formula when they have surefire hits with Brosnan.

theuofc

Hi, SamK,

Why prejudge Daniel Craig before we see him once in the new Bond caper? He doesn't fit the usual glossy hero mold. Believe them or not, the producers say they want to put a new edge to Bond (meaning pull in a different cash audience). If this new Bond is boring, then I'll consider putting out a hit on him. Familiarity doesn't have to breed boredom or discontent.

Even though this Bond may be repeated on the box, I prefer seeing visual effects films like Bond on the big screen to give the movie makers a chance to strut their stuff and fully feel the thrills.

I'm puzzled. Why does going to film school rule out one's also having talent? Does having a gilt-edged diploma from RADA necessarily rule out creativity or talent?

Come on, SamK...give us a smile, Luv. Very nice to have you back.

Best,

Barbara

Wolfgang

I agree with his film school comments partially - it seems to have bred more generic styles of filmmaking.

theuofc

Hi, Wolfgang,

I like your qualification "partially." Sometimes I think that training can squash creativity and encourage fitting a certain mould in vogue. But not always.

It's an interesting thought...in your opinion, what filmmakers who were trained in film school are generic in their styles?... and if you care to address also Sam's implication that having a film school diploma rules out talent?

Thanks for your thoughts,

Barbara

samkydd

You misunderstood my post, Daniel Craig is a bloody good actor and I remember him well in Our Friends in the North, so I've nothing against him at all. I just think that the Bond series has run its course and holds no interest for me any more!

As for film school talent, well, you've only got to see the many mainstream offerings in recent years to see that there is this ridiculous trend to do awful remakes of once great films and film versions of TV programmes, because no-one wants to do anything new, in the same way that boyband and girlie pop singers play it safe and do cover versions of once great hits all the time, familiarity sells. Accountants run the film industry and if nostalgia and familiarity can con people into the cinema then we're unlikely to see any changes, therefore the ability to copy what has gone before seems to be more important than someone having the talent to come up with original ideas!

When I did Art at school everything I did came out of my head, some good stuff and some absolute crap, but at least it was my own crap, and over time my ideas and techniques improved! Others in the class would bring in album sleeves and copy them down to the last detail and they were the ones who were getting top marks in their course work. I could have copied album covers too, but from an artistic point of view, what would have been the point? If that had been a film school Michael Powell and Ken Russell would have been chucked out!

The only film in recent memory that I have enjoyed is Dogville, and despite its stifling enclosed stage set it was like a breath of fresh air!

When I were a youth we were rebels without a pause, and anything that smacked of cynical big business commercialism was rejected out of hand by my contemporaries and we all felt pretty good about not belonging, or conforming to what the pin-striped suit brigade wanted us to go along with. Whether it was buying Levis or Puma trainers, because the marketing con was plain for all to see. In more recent years youth seems to embrace this culture with open arms, and instead of bucking against the con artists they want to get in there with them and join them as soon as possible!

Just my humble unqualified opinion of course, and I don't expect people to share it!

"...the chairman of Littlewoods stores made a Keynote speech!"

Captain Casper

Bond, in everyones mind is one person. Connery.

No-one has come close to the portrayal - possibly because Connery was the first and each successor had big shoes to fill. Lazenby was an Aussie and was dubbed. Roger Moore was a parody, a wise-cracking fanny-rat. Dalton was just a lump of mahogany in a tux and didn't enjoy the part. Brosnan came close, but overdid the smugness.

No-one can really berate Craig until at least a trailer emerges, but I'd be extremely keen to see the screen-test that won him the role. Whats made me take notice is the fact Craig "hates handguns", cannot drive a manual-gearbox car (its an Aston Martin, fuxake!) and looks like an extra from Trainspotting.

I won't be boycotting, but I can't say I'm looking forward to this. Brosnan could have a triumphant return in 2008.

nellybly

Technically Amercian Barry Nelson was the first filmed James Bond but unless you were in the U.S. in 1954 watching the television show Climax! which apparently telecast different dramas each week, I can't see that he would have had an influence on future Bonds.

We had a TV in 1954 but Climax! wasn't one of the shows my parents watched. My mother liked crime and detective shows, my father liked to watch wrestling, roller derby and demolition derby as well as country-western bands. I was 5 years old and liked Roy Rogers.

Nelson's Bond is on the DVD of the 1967 Casino Royale as an extra. I haven't seen it but maybe I'll try to get a copy from my local library just for masochism's sake.

It was a wonderful treat
To hear the patter of horsey feet.

Thanks For The Buggyride recorded by Percival Mackey

Marky B

And don't forget Bob (I'll have a P,Bob) Holness on South African radio.
As I wrote somewhere before on this forum,I believe the new Bond has been inspired by the success of the "Bourne" films with Matt Damon:no gadgets,just thinking on your feet - if that is the case I am look forward to it,and as a die hard Bond fan (and a Die Hard fan) I am willling to to give Daniel Craig a chance.
Ta Ta
Marky B

I am special. The heavens always open for me.

Jim

I suppose that we should give the blokwe a chance. I have seen him in other things and he was quite good; but I think a dark-haired man would be better as the goverment's assassin.

Good morning boys.