eonline.com says Britain's Daily Mail is reporting that Daniel Craig has been selected to fill Pierce Brosnan's shoes as the next James Bond. An official announcement is expected later this week.

Just passing this along ... if it is true, then they've possibly struck a balance in the search for a younger Bond actor. Craig is about a month older than I am -- he's 37, and grew up in Liverpool.

Checked out some photos of Craig at imdb ... he strikes me as looking older than 37. He's done lots of movies, including Tomb Raider and Road to Perdition, as well as Layer Cake, which also featured Colm Meaney.

Qapla'

SSB

Interesting.

after a google search I vaguely recall the fellow from Tomb Raider. Perhaps a good choice; but does he have the charisma that the role requires? Evidently the powers that be running the Bond franchise must think so.

Huzz

Good news.

I know there are those who question whether Craig has the right "look" for the role, but I'd urge the Doubting Thomases's among you to check out "Layer Cake" before passing judgment. Besides being an exceedingly clever caper movie, it provides a great showcase for Craig's cool demeanor, sexual swagger and cat-like physicality.

I don't know if the next Bond film will be any good, but with the casting of Daniel Craig the filmmakers are off to a good start (assuming the news is true, of course).

I can't understand why they got rid of Pierce. I read somewhere he still wanted the role.

I can't understand why they got rid of Pierce. I read somewhere he still wanted the role.

He wanted (a lot) more money than the producers will willing to grant.

I'm sure Brosnan will say "they told me I was too old...:cry: " and TPTB will say Brosnan wanted too much money. I doubt we'll ever know.

I will miss Pierce as I miss Sean, but all things change.

I wish him luck and hope the franchise regains some of its former glory. The last Brosnan Bond was a turkey IMHO. Even Halle Berry couldn't redeem it.

What was the last thing Halle Berry DID redeem?
:D

I thought she looked pretty good in Swordfish, in a dumb brunette sort of way:rolleyes:

When I heard the news I first thought "Shaka! When the walls fell". Admitedly, just based on 'looks' alone, Daniel Craig wouldn't have been my first choice, but there's much more to the Bond character than his looks. His screen presence and charisma are also important factors and thus the powers that be have seen something in his tests as Bond that we haven't yet.

Once we've seen anybody successfully portray a character it's hard to imagine anybody else in that position. Who'd have thought Michael Keaton would be a good choice for Batman? Personally, I was pulling for Clive Owen but-oh well, it's a done deal now. Lets just hope the people behind Bond knew what they were doing. Let's give this guy a chance and see what he brings to the table.

When I heard the news I first thought "Shaka! When the walls fell". Admitedly, just based on 'looks' alone, Daniel Craig wouldn't have been my first choice, but there's much more to the Bond character than his looks. His screen presence and charisma are also important factors and thus the powers that be have seen something in his tests as Bond that we haven't yet.

Once we've seen anybody successfully portray a character it's hard to imagine anybody else in that position. Who'd have thought Michael Keaton would be a good choice for Batman? Personally, I was pulling for Clive Owen but-oh well, it's a done deal now. Lets just hope the people behind Bond knew what they were doing. Let's give this guy a chance and see what he brings to the table.

Owen or Christian Bale would have been superb. Hell, I'd have settled for Adrian Paul at this point, just to stop all this talk of Craig.

Keaton was a grotesque choice by Burton (if he had to use an actor he was familiar with, why not Alec Baldwin, also from BEETLEJUICE?) Or reuse the PLATOON casting, with a straight haired Berenger as Batman and Dafoe as Joker? But then again, Burton also cast Nic Cage as Superman (thank god that didn't happen, Cage certainly is happy, a pay or play deal there.)

No, if it goes down with Craig, it will be a disaster, a genuine disaster. If you want to cast a good actor, fine, but accept that the results will be like Dalton -- only much much worse, since this guy is so damned unattractive, whereas Dalton looked good (handsome going to seed as opposed to ugly with smarm appeal.)

I'd love it if Brosnan did a good little spy type pic that opened against CASINO and wiped it out, rough justice if Brosnan actually got a good script again, like TAILOR OF PANAMA, or helped get THE PRISONER made as a feature.

The idea of skipping a Bond flick with a decent script seems like heresy, but not as heretical as casting Craig. What's next, rebooted TREK with Michael Chiklis as Capt Kirk?

My God-Starbuck is a woman! What the f&^%k! Sound familiar? Look how good that change turned out. I'm not thrilled about Craig as Bond either and I still think Keaton was a good Batman. I think Clive woul have been awesome, I thought Connery and Brosnan were excellent. And yes Dalton had a fantastic 'look' as Bond-too bad they were movies and not photographs.

At this point I know nothing of Craig's portrayal of Bond nor do you. All I'm saying is give him a chance-and while you're at it, set out a bowl; it may need to be filled with crow.

I liked Timothy Dalton as Bond. He was perfect for those two roles he did, especially "License to Kill". He was dark, edgy and you could just feel the power behind both his mind and his body.

The only Bond I've not really cared for, overall, is George Lazenby. Not that he was bad looking for the role, just that I don't think he was that great of an actor in that movie.

I don't think Dalton was awful as Bond, there was just something missing. He was definitely a step in the right direction. Of his two films, I thought "The Living Daylights" was much, much better than "License To Kill" which to me seemed somewhat 'cheap' as compared to other Bond films.

I thought Lazenby was great as Bond, and from reading and watching behind the scenes info, the public and many fans did too. Lazenby walked away from the role. Watch "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" again and pay attention to the cool moments that Lazenby brought to Bond. His fights were savage, his vulnerability when being chased just before the rally sequence and you feel his loss at the end of the film. I thought it was great. There's more to being a lead than just having a square jaw, no emotion and kicking everybodys ass-and I thought he pulled it off.

I don't think Dalton was awful as Bond, there was just something missing. He was definitely a step in the right direction. Of his two films, I thought "The Living Daylights" was much, much better than "License To Kill" which to me seemed somewhat 'cheap' as compared to other Bond films.
I'll certainly agree that the SFX/VFX for the movie seemed rather cheap, but I thought the acting and overall plot wasn't nearly as bad as some folks make out. The cheapness of the production definitely takes away from the overall movie, including Dalton's performance, tho.
I thought Lazenby was great as Bond, and from reading and watching behind the scenes info, the public and many fans did too. Lazenby walked away from the role. Watch "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" again and pay attention to the cool moments that Lazenby brought to Bond. His fights were savage, his vulnerability when being chased just before the rally sequence and you feel his loss at the end of the film. I thought it was great. There's more to being a lead than just having a square jaw, no emotion and kicking everybodys ass-and I thought he pulled it off.
I guess I need to watch "OHMSS" again, 'cause it's been a while since I last saw it. I definitely agree w/the last part of the film being sort of gut-wrenching when his wife dies. However, I don't recall the rest of the movie with any real detail, but know I was left w/the feeling that it just wasn't nearly as good as it could've been. Of course, it might be that I'd seen most all of the Connery films prior to this, so it might be that I was biased against Lazenby from the first time I saw that it wasn't Connery as Bond.

I thought Lazenby was great as Bond, and from reading and watching behind the scenes info, the public and many fans did too. Lazenby walked away from the role. Watch "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" again and pay attention to the cool moments that Lazenby brought to Bond. His fights were savage, his vulnerability when being chased just before the rally sequence and you feel his loss at the end of the film. I thought it was great. There's more to being a lead than just having a square jaw, no emotion and kicking everybodys ass-and I thought he pulled it off.


I guess I need to watch "OHMSS" again, 'cause it's been a while since I last saw it. I definitely agree w/the last part of the film being sort of gut-wrenching when his wife dies. However, I don't recall the rest of the movie with any real detail, but know I was left w/the feeling that it just wasn't nearly as good as it could've been. Of course, it might be that I'd seen most all of the Connery films prior to this, so it might be that I was biased against Lazenby from the first time I saw that it wasn't Connery as Bond.

I think both of these statements pretty well hit the nail on the head. Connery was a nearly impossible act to follow. Lazenby came out of nowhere and I think there was an innate prejudice against anyone who took that role the first time out after Connery's departure. Over the years the "Lazenby sucked as Bond" thing became a sort of mindless mantra akin to "Ringo was a lousy drummer" or "Heaven's Gate is the worst Western ever made". Just not true.

Keaton was a grotesque choice by Burton

On the contrary, Keaton was the best thing about "Batman", bringing a touch of psychological complexity and emotional vulnerability to an otherwise soulless motion-picture.

...if it goes down with Craig, it will be a disaster, a genuine disaster ... this guy is so damned unattractive...

If the next Bond is a disaster it won’t be because of Daniel Craig. Granted he’s no prettyboy (like Moore or Brosnan) but, as anyone who’s seen “Layer Cake” can tell, the guy’s got sex appeal to burn.

What's next, rebooted TREK with Michael Chiklis as Capt Kirk?

While I can’t think of anything more pointless than a rebooted TOS you could do a helluva lot worse than casting Michael Chiklis as your lead.

James BLOND. Get it? Blond?

I don't know if I want to see a blond Bond, and I'm blonde.

Hopefully they'll dye his hair. He doesn't fit the 'pretty boy' image, but I'll give him this much; he's a tough looking bastard! Maybe that's what they're after. My biggest problem with the first Batman movie was-what the hell happened with that FX shot of the Joker falling? Did they have $.87 left in the FX budget or what?

Talk about Lucas overworking his films, that's one instance where they really need to go back and add in a new FX shot.

Over the years the "Lazenby sucked as Bond" thing became a sort of mindless mantra akin to ..."Heaven's Gate is the worst Western ever made". Just not true.

Oh yes. Yes it is.





Oh yes.

My God-Starbuck is a woman! What the f&^%k! Sound familiar? Look how good that change turned out. I'm not thrilled about Craig as Bond either and I still think Keaton was a good Batman. I think Clive woul have been awesome, I thought Connery and Brosnan were excellent. And yes Dalton had a fantastic 'look' as Bond-too bad they were movies and not photographs.

At this point I know nothing of Craig's portrayal of Bond nor do you. All I'm saying is give him a chance-and while you're at it, set out a bowl; it may need to be filled with crow.

The Starbuck argument ain't valid, since new BSG has got less in common with old BSG than Roger Moore's Bond has in common with the others (and that is saying a LOT, given how out in left field I found Moore.)

There is literally no way for ME to give Craig a chance as Bond. I've read the novels many times, seen most of the films several times (except VIEW TO A KILL and TOMORROW NEVER DIES, which are just too bad to rewatch or finish watching, respectively, IMO), and even with the stench of Moore in the air, Craig is a full fathom further off, just on the basis of appearance.

As others have said, I think he'd be fine as Felix Leiter, or as a Robert Davi type realistic antagonist. But it doesn't matter how good his performance is, because I won't give it a chance, since I cannot and will not accept somebody looking that way for Bond, anymore than I would accept Tiny Tim or Dennis Rodman as Number 6 in THE PRISONER. You may consider it to be my loss that I wouldn't be open to viewing it, but it isn't because I've already lost if they really go this way with the casting. Between the last decade of TREK and the way Bond seems to be going, I guess it is time for me to start doing more reading and less watching.

On the contrary, Keaton was the best thing about "Batman", bringing a touch of psychological complexity and emotional vulnerability to an otherwise soulless motion-picture.



If the next Bond is a disaster it won’t be because of Daniel Craig. Granted he’s no prettyboy (like Moore or Brosnan) but, as anyone who’s seen “Layer Cake” can tell, the guy’s got sex appeal to burn.



While I can’t think of anything more pointless than a rebooted TOS you could do a helluva lot worse than casting Michael Chiklis as your lead.


The BATMAN character stuff was ON THE PAGE. Literally any competent actor -- not star, ACTOR -- could have delivered those goods, and without the distracting baggage Keaton dragged along, and some of them would at least have gotten some physical characteristics a bit closer to the mark. It took Keaton the better part of two films to get to a moment where he actually delivered for me (when he sheds his mask near the end of BR), and that is too damned long to wait (unless you're a moderntrek TNG/Voyager/Enterprise fan who only expects to get good entertainment after they've been doing it for four years.)

I've seen LAYER CAKE since you mentioned it previously, and I gotta say I'm still not seeing that special something in Craig. In fact, I'd say he had less going on here than in previous films, though that may have something to do with my less than positive reaction to LAYER CAKE as well (for me, recent UK crime stuff doesn't entertain better than SEXY BEAST and LOVE HONOUR & OBEY.) Like Dalton, he's just a guy who can act, but unlike Dalton, he doesn't have the look (and I actually find him distasteful to watch onscreen, which can't be a good thing.)

Your use of the word pointless with respect to Chiklis may actually point up my principle problem with Craig/Bond -- that the idea is not just hurtful to the series but ultimately pointless. I can't imagine it elevating him to any decent status, and in fact it could make him a laughingstock. Doing Bond younger only makes sense if you really go younger, not have a novice Bond who is 5 or 6 years older than Connery when he started and looks even older.

All valid points. My brothers and I were raised as Bond fanatics. Serious, serious fans-almost unlikely that a middle income black family would latch on to a European series so much-but we found the whole Bond thing was that cool. We absolutely hated the level of needless slapstick that Moore brought to the series, and it seemed that he made 800 movies in the series-his reign went on far too long.

Now we have Daniel Craig, trust me-I ain't thrilled. I think it's downright dumb that they passed up Clive Owen. I KNOW Clive would have knocked Bond out of the park!

As a loooong time fan, I am only half heartedly accepting Craig as Bond-what choice do I have? It seems they were hell bent on having some form of Bond film by such and such date which in my opinion is bull. The world can wait a little longer until the right script, the right filmmakers and the right man to play Bond are available-not because they want to start shooting next Monday.

If Casino Royale is a success, no one will be happier than me. If it's an abysmal failure, then whats the worst that can happen? One more franchise down and another film that opened on a Friday that sucked. A scenario that's becoming all too familiar these days. Next.

I think Clive Owen has the perfect look too, but I understand he's not interested. Oh well.

There is literally no way for ME to give Craig a chance as Bond. I've read the novels many times, seen most of the films several times (except VIEW TO A KILL and TOMORROW NEVER DIES, which are just too bad to rewatch or finish watching, respectively, IMO), and even with the stench of Moore in the air, Craig is a full fathom further off, just on the basis of appearance.

I too liked Michael Keaton in "Batman", and the statement above reminds me of the sort of needlessly insulting fanboy hyperbole that erupted when it was announced he'd been cast in the role (thank god there was no AICN back then). I can understand having misgivings about an actor's qualifications for a given role, but to refuse to even give him a chance seems pointlessly close-minded.

You may have been underwhelmed by Craig in "Layer Cake" but his performance in that film made him a huge star in Europe, and I think the reasons are pretty obvious. And while I'm not sure the world needs another James Bond movie, I think Craig would be great in the part.

By the way, the "Batman" character may have been "on the page" but it sure as hell wasn't on the screen. It's to Keaton's credit the character didn't disappear into the scenery altogether.

I have always believed (and have noted here several times) that the point of having Michael Keaton play Bruce Wayne/Batman was to emphasize the fact that this is a guy who is at least borderline crazy. He's just an ordinary man, and yet he's out swinging around the rooftops, beating up bad guys night after night. Keaton has a reasonably distinctive face but is rather nondescript overall, which thus plays up the "ordinary man" angle.

Qapla'

SSB

Isn't it a bit unfair to attribute all the silliness of the Roger Moore Bond movies to just the actor? Certainly the studio, writers and producers would have agreed to all that campy stuff.

And didn't Ian Flemming virtually hand-pick Roger Moore for the role of Bond because he looked almost exactly as Fleming pictured Bond should look?

So, if you could transplant Moore into a serious Bond story, then you would probably have a bang-on Bond flic. Perhaps rent some old "The Saint" TV shows for an idea of what could have been.

Huzz

It’s official; Daniel Craig has been cast as the next James Bond. Time will tell if audiences are ready for a tougher, darker, grittier take on the character. I know I am.

...it doesn't matter how good his performance is, because I won't give it a chance, since I cannot and will not accept somebody looking that way for Bond...

Dude, you are hung up over the looks issue. Sorry Craig’s performance in “Layer Cake” didn’t do more to alter your opinion of him, but given comments like the one above I guess I'm not surprised.

The BATMAN character stuff was ON THE PAGE. Literally any competent actor -- not star, ACTOR -- could have delivered those goods, and without the distracting baggage Keaton dragged along, and some of them would at least have gotten some physical characteristics a bit closer to the mark.

What you call “distracting baggage” I call dimension and complexity. And if by “closer to the mark” you mean casting an actor with chiseled features and a bulked-up physique, well, that certainly would have been the obvious choice. Fortunately Bob Ringwood’s terrific costume design allowed the filmmakers to cast more to character and less to appearance.

Your use of the word pointless with respect to Chiklis may actually point up my principle problem with Craig/Bond -- that the idea is not just hurtful to the series but ultimately pointless.

The “point” is to breath new life into a stale franchise that has bordered on self-parody since the mid-seventies. When Timothy Dalton was cast in the role the world was not ready for a grittier, more ruthless James Bond. A lot has changed since then, and I think Daniel Craig may fare better with modern audiences than Dalton did with audiences back in the 80’s

I can understand having misgivings about an actor's qualifications for a given role, but to refuse to even give him a chance seems pointlessly close-minded.

When you’ve grown up with a certain character it’s hard not to have a strong opinion about the casting of that character (my father never forgave Audrey Hepburn for usurping Julie Andrews in the filmed version of “My Fair Lady”).

From a commercial standpoint the Bond producers would probably be playing it safer by casting a hunky twenty-something prettyboy in the role, but from a creative perspective I’d much rather watch an older, more rugged actor play boyish than the other way around.

Isn't it a bit unfair to attribute all the silliness of the Roger Moore Bond movies to just the actor?

Yes.

...didn't Ian Flemming virtually hand-pick Roger Moore for the role of Bond because he looked almost exactly as Fleming pictured Bond should look?

Fleming died in 1964, and may not have even known who Roger Moore was. He did like Cary Grant for the role, but Grant felt he was too old.

I have always believed (and have noted here several times) that the point of having Michael Keaton play Bruce Wayne/Batman was to emphasize the fact that this is a guy who is at least borderline crazy.

Exactly. Keaton could just as easily have played the Joker but I think placing him in the title role was a much more interesting choice.

Perhaps I'm the victim of an urband legend; I can't find a reference to which actor Ian Fleming preferred as Bond.

But I did find a couple of sources that said Fleming thought that Connery was too unrefined to be a convincing Bond.

Huzz

I seem to recall Fleming like David Niven for the part.

I seem to recall Fleming like David Niven for the part.

Me too. I don't think we'd be talking about Bond movies today if Niven had gotten the part (and yes, I've seen the original Casino Royale).

I'm glad some of us are willing to give Craig a shot. Like I said before, let's see what he brings to the table. Besides, after all these years, I'm still not sure just what women find attractive-it's not always just looks-they're sometimes a little deeper about whats a turn on than us guys are. Thank God!

Isn't it a bit unfair to attribute all the silliness of the Roger Moore Bond movies to just the actor? Certainly the studio, writers and producers would have agreed to all that campy stuff.


They were camping it up already in DIAMONDS before Moore, but Moore really pushed it in that direction, plus he had clout enough to change the story. At one point when he was suppposed to kill somebody in cold blood, he said he wouldn't do that because it was nasty and his children would be seeing the movie! And he was SERIOUS! (I guess shooting somebody four times -- twice in the balls -- in SPY doesn't count as being nasty to Moore, cuz this was when he was doing EYES ONLY.)

I think Moore's reluctance to take things seriously is as serious a matter as Ken Ralston not appreciating the refit's lines -- if that is your 'tude, don't go there and take the paycheck!

Richard Maibaum, who wrote nearly all the Bonds up through 90, frigging hated Moore's one-liners, though he liked Connery's. When the writer doesn't like what you do to his stuff, that is one indication of a potential problem, especially with somebody like Maibaum, who was pretty damned brilliant when he wasn't being weighed down by other concerns.

I'm finished with Bond now that Craig has been cast. I'll enjoy the Connerys and Daltons and GoldenEye, but from now on, the new stuff ... nope. They really missed the boat with this casting.

It’s official; Daniel Craig has been cast as the next James Bond. Time will tell if audiences are ready for a tougher, darker, grittier take on the character. I know I am.



Dude, you are hung up over the looks issue. Sorry Craig’s performance in “Layer Cake” didn’t do more to alter your opinion of him, but given comments like the one above I guess I'm not surprised.



What you call “distracting baggage” I call dimension and complexity. And if by “closer to the mark” you mean casting an actor with chiseled features and a bulked-up physique, well, that certainly would have been the obvious choice. Fortunately Bob Ringwood’s terrific costume design allowed the filmmakers to cast more to character and less to appearance.
.

We got dimension and complexity IN SPADES with Bale, and even to a slight degree with Kilmer. And they looked okay, too.

The looks issue is simple ... we ain't remaking SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD here ... the looks are a big part of it. Shit, I look more like any concept of Bond I've read or seen than this guy, and so do lots of actual working actors.

This is just too much crap. See my previous post for my final comments on the new Bond (for all time.)

I am a Bond man to the core. I have read all the Ian Fleming Novels at least twice.Sean Connery was THE BEST BOND. I suspect he will hold that title for a LOOOONG TIME. George Lazenby WAS A VERY GOOD BOND. Had he not followed the advice of several bone heads, I believe he would have riveled Connery to some degree. Roger Moore gets a lot of flack about his films. Don't blame him, Blame that generation of movie goers. They paid for the tickets which led the filmmakers to continue to make Moore's films the way they were. Dalton was good. I liked him better than Brosnan. Brosnan looked like he needed some exlax all the time. Whoever takes the role, I don't think we will ever have Bond mania again. Connery was and still is king. When he was Bond his films were an event. High Regards, Mark

I have been away for a few days, so forgive me if this was posted, but according to a paper here, there will be NO Moneypenny and NO Q. Are they sure they are making a Bond film?? Good news may see Angekina Jolie as a Bond Girl.

Watched Layer Cake last night. Jury still's out on how well Craig fits the part for me. It will depend on the type of film they make I think. I have trouble picturing Craig doing the tongue in cheek humor and the "lighter" type of action scenes that make you laugh. No Bond screwing the bad guys with a remote control car with this guy. If it is a darker, rougher, more serious Bond, like Dalton but even more so, this may have possibilities. I have no problem imagining Craig shooting Professor Dent in cold blood or garrotting Red Grant at the conclusion of a fight to the death. SPOILER. The scene in Layer Cake when Craig shoots the crime boss in the head would work well in a Bond film if this is the type of Bond they're aiming for. I have no idea what Craig's actual accent sounds like but it will have to move up the social ladder a rung or two from this film to Bond.

Craig really really reminds me of Steve McQueen. He resembles him and moves like him. Even has the same hair cut. Especially McQueen in Bullitt. That image is kinda stuck in my head now, McQueen as Bond, portrayed like Bullitt. Instead of a silly car chase a Bullitt type car chase or the motorcycle chase in Great Escape.
Just have to wait and see.

If it is a darker, rougher, more serious Bond, like Dalton but even more so, this (Daniel Craig) may have possibilities

That's exactly the sort of Bond the filmmakers have in mind (or so they say). Craig seems a perfect fit to me.

Craig really really reminds me of Steve McQueen. He resembles him and moves like him.

Hadn't occured to me before but, my God, you're absolutely right... an English Steve McQueen.

Craig really really reminds me of Steve McQueen.

Yeah, I can totally see that. I'm a huge McQueen fan, so maybe that explains why I'm so keen for Craig in the Bond role.

If it is a darker, rougher, more serious Bond, like Dalton but even more so, this may have possibilities.

The world has changed a great deal since the last 007 film was released in 2002, and I strongly suspect modern audiences are primed to embrace a leaner, meaner, less pretty James Bond. And while I doubt the producers will deviate significantly from the formula that's served them so well in the past, I do expect the tone of the new "Casino Royal" to reflect the times we live in.