I dunno... I just don't think Daniel Craig is gonna work as Bond.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/quantumofsolace/high.html

;)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......

Methinks a bit o' sarcasm is present ;)

I dunno... I just don't think Daniel Craig is gonna work as Bond.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/quantumofsolace/high.html

;)I agree. I give him three, maybe four more turns in the role.

Qapla'

SSB

Saw the trailer at the theater recently. I think the hair stood up on the back of my neck.

First Bond since Connery that I'd want on my side in a bar fight.

After seeing Casino, it was like being reminded how good a Bond film could be. Connery will always be my fave, but Craig is a close second. Brosnan was good early on, but the films slipped and lost their edge. They never lapsed into Roger Moore/Austin Powers parody, but if left to continue, they may have.

Connery will always be my fave, but Craig is a close second.

Ditto.

Craig fits the role like a clove. Looking back, casting wise, it's hard to imagine what all the fuss was about...

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=124881&highlight=daniel+craig

Its about not having an open mind.alexander

Sorta like how folks are busting on the remake of "The Day The Earth Stood Still"? Or "War of the Worlds"? Or "Journey to the Center of the Earth"? Or "Transformers"? Or any of a couple dozen other movies that the vocal minority of folks here have panned based on one or two trailers? ;)

Actually, with the exception of Roger Moore, I've thought all the guys that have played Bond were pretty good. The movies that Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan were in just weren't that good. I even liked George Lazenby.

I thought Craig was great in Casino Royale, and I look forward to this one.And I agree with Zorro, of all the Bonds, Craig seems like the guy most ready to tussle.

I agree, Phil (I agree with Phil?!?! :eek:) (;)). I think Brosnan was perfect for the role, and Goldeneye was a damn good movie. But the rest of his films were terrible thru no fault of his.

Sorta like how folks are busting on the remake of "The Day The Earth Stood Still"? Or "War of the Worlds"? Or "Journey to the Center of the Earth"? Or "Transformers"? Or any of a couple dozen other movies that the vocal minority of folks here have panned based on one or two trailers? ;)

Don't forget how a lot of people are saying Star Trek 11 is going to suck based on a single photograph of one of the shuttlecraft.

That still cracks me up.

I watched the Bond films, but never really made it a point to see them in the theater. I had no interest is the recent Bond films at all. After seeing Casino Royale and Danile Craig as Bond, I regret not seeing this in the theater. I'll definitely be there for QoS. I'm highly impressed with this Bond.

Bond is a funny thing. The actors, for the most part, have been good. But, the material they give them sometimes is just awful. I really wish Brosnan had a better chance to be the Bond he could have been. Although, I am very glad with what is happening with the new reboot. Bond is dangerous and not 'funny' or snarky.

There's always been something of the Lounge Lizard about Bond (it's part of his seemingly endless appeal), but Moore and Brosnan were allowed to overplay this aspect rather severely (especially Moore). The character became a campy caricature, which is never what Ian Flemming intended.

Craig certainly appears comfortable chatting up the babes in a tuxedo, but I also buy him as a ruthless killer, and this is an important part of who Bond is. I never for a second bought either Moore or Brosnan as a killer. I did buy them as pretty boys playing dress up (which appears to have been what a pre-9/11 audience wanted from their Bond), but I never had the feeling the stakes were very high with those guys in the lead. Not their fault really; clearly the producers weren't taking the character seriously, so why should the actors? Or, for that matter, why should the audience?

I for one am glad to see this franchise getting back to basics (nb JJ Abrams).

I never for a second bought either Moore or Brosnan as a killer. I did buy them as pretty boys playing dress up (which appears to have been what a pre-9/11 audience wanted from their Bond), but I never had the feeling the stakes were very high with those guys in the lead.

While I agree with you about Moore, Brosnan's work in The Tailor of Panama and The Matador makes me think he could have brought a lot to Bond if the movies themselves hadn't sucked so bad. Ditto for Timothy Dalton. Roger Moore, on the other hand, seems to play Roger Moore in whatever he's in. (though I did like him in Ffolkes)

I actually liked Brosnan as Bond, tho agree that the movies themselves weren't as good as they could have. Well, the last definitely didn't appeal to me, but Brosnan's first Bond flick (sorry, forget the name) wasn't bad. I bought both he and Dalton as Bond.

Craig, tho... He definitely brings the element of the cold, calculating killer to the table. His Bond is just overall bad-arsed. As someone said, he could chat up a lady, have some fun hangin' w/the fellas and then turn around and kill whomever he was assigned to kill - if the "feeling" was right. No cumpunctions about killing someone, if they get in the way of his assignemnt and aren't likely categorized as "civilians".

I am also looking forward to this film.

Sean Connery by Far is my Favorite Bond. None of the other Bond actors have come close...

"On Her Majesty's Secret Service" And "From Russia wth Love" Being the pinacle of the Films.

God bless 007.

bp

Carson, did you cut this?

Either way, it's a damn fine trailer. Gave me chills. :thumbsup:

As someone said, he could chat up a lady, have some fun hangin' w/the fellas and then turn around and kill whomever he was assigned to kill...You've really zeroed in on what is required for any actor to convincingly play Bond. Connery definitely had these qualities. Lazenby wasn't particularly convincing period, neither was Moore. Dalton did a fair job with the espionage, but wasn't good looking or charming enough to convincingly play the "ladies man". Brosnan had these qualities but, as has been said, except for GoldenEye the films weren't particularly good. Craig doesn't have what most would consider "classic" good looks, but his personality more than makes up for this, and he's equally convincing whether he's chasing the ladies or the bad guys.

Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong. :p

Roger Moore, on the other hand, seems to play Roger Moore in whatever he's in. (though I did like him in Ffolkes)

I'm embarrassed to say that I actually saw ffolkes multiple times in the theater. Now I think it's pretty campy, but at the time I really loved it.

Connery had a sense of danger.

Lazenby did not though his outing was a first-class film.

Moore was too refined and his films devolved into gadget-filled parodies.

Dalton started strong but was too brooding. I did like him a lot (remembering him from Flash Gordon...FLASH...AHH AHH) but the films were just not up to it.

Brosnan was a breath of fresh air in Goldeneye. He was the best Bond since Connery with the right mix of humor, sexuality and danger. Unfortunately, as has been noted, the quality of the films failed to come up to the quality of the actor. The last one (forget the title, the one with Halle) was the first Bond film I didn't see in the theater since Moonraker. When I did catch it one DVD, I wasn't sorry I missed it. It was starting to slip into Moore territory. A change was obviously needed.

Craig has breathed new life into a franchise that has been successfully reinvented. It's interesting to consider Brosnan playing the lead in Casino Royale back in 1994. He would have been brilliant I'm sure. And it begs the question whether it's Craig that's so great (which I think he is) or the film.

Looking forward to November.

While I too agree that Sean Connery was by far the best Bond, Daniel Craig IMHO has to come in at a close second. He goes back to the original in style and flavor, using 21st century ethics and issues, as apposed to 1960s concerns and carries it off quite well. Less gimmicks, more acting. As to Craig's Bond being a cold-blooded killer, well I seem to remember that's how Connery's Bond started out.

While I too agree that Sean Connery was by far the best Bond, Daniel Craig IMHO has to come in at a close second. He goes back to the original in style and flavor, using 21st century ethics and issues, as apposed to 1960s concerns and carries it off quite well. Less gimmicks, more acting. As to Craig's Bond being a cold-blooded killer, well I seem to remember that's how Connery's Bond started out.

Agreed!:thumbsup:

What also sets Craig apart is THEY WENT BACK TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL!!!Ian Flemming's Book!!

That's another reason Connery's Bond was the Best. They used A LOT of the material in the books. The Novels are Excellent.

BP

Carson, did you cut this?

No, but I wish we had.

Actually, with the exception of Roger Moore, I've thought all the guys that have played Bond were pretty good. The movies that Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan were in just weren't that good. I even liked George Lazenby.

Me too. I suspect Lazenby would have grown quite comfortably into the role with subsequent outings.

Yeah, Lazenby got a bum wrap. "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" is one of the better Bonds, and I thought Lazenby delivered the goods.

Guess the audience wasn't quite ready to bid farewell to Connery. Clearly the the producers weren't.

Pretty interesting article. Don't know when it was written:

http://www.cinemaretro.com/index.php?/archives/53-DEFENDING-LAZENBY-OHMSS-A-HIT-AT-NY-FILM-FORUM.html

Good taste hasn't totally vanished from the landscape even in the era of Paris Hilton and Simon Cowell. On May 12, Cinema Retro was invited to attend the Film Forum's New York screenings of the 1969 James Bond film On Her Majesty's Secret Service. The fact that there were impressive lines of ticket buyers should not surprise true 007 fans. They have known since the film's original release that this is one of, if not arguably, the best in the series. The superb 35mm print (the best this writer has seen) added to the afternoon's pleasures as an appreciative audience enjoyed the many pleasures of George Lazenby's one and only appearance as James Bond. At the end of the film, the audience applauded. When was the last time you saw a contemporary film that elicited such emotion from the audience?


http://www.cinemaretro.com/uploads/OH8.jpg
Promotional artwork for George Lazenby's James Bond




http://www.cinemaretro.com/uploads/CROHMSS.serendipityThumb.jpgI address these issues only because of the fact that for many years OHMSS was the Rodney Dangerfield of spy movies. It got no respect, at least from the lifted pinky types in the critical establishment. A number of wild rumors entered popular folklore, the most notorious being that Lazenby- an Australian model with no previous acting experience- had proven to be such a poor successor to Sean Connery that he was fired after his only Bond film. In fact, producers Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman did indeed have personality clashes with their often brash young star, but in the end they tried to persuade him to sign a multi-picture deal. Lazenby, who erroneously believed Bond was a relic of the sixties whose popularity was waning, opted to leave the series instead. This may make him guilty of having shown poor business judgment, but the fact is he did indeed click with the public. That brings us to dispelling myth #2: that OHMSS was a box-office failure. The truth is that the film was a substantial financial success, particularly in Europe. However, the difficulty of marketing a one-shot Bond did take a toll on the grosses and the film did not perform as well as the Connery entries in the series.

http://www.cinemaretro.com/uploads/OH6.serendipityThumb.jpgMost of those who dismiss the film haven't actually seen it, at least in recent years. In watching it again on the big screen with the ideal audience, the movie's many strengths only become more apparent: Lazenby's young, energetic portrayal of Bond, the stunning cinematography, the outstanding supporting cast, the literate and intelligent script, Syd Cain's creative production design and John Barry's score, undoubtedly the best of the series. In recent years, public opinion about OHMSS has largely been reversed, probably due to a generation of people seeing it for the first time through home video. Most movie fans now agree it is a film with considerable merits, but the familiar refrain is "it could have been a classic if only Connery had starred in it." I humbly disagree. What makes OHMSS so unique is the fact that it is an oddball entry in the series and there is no doubt that it's merits are largely due to Connery's absence. By the time Connery had starred in You Only Live Twice two years previously, the series had basically discarded virtually all elements of realism and any major link to Ian Fleming's source novels. Although there is no greater fan of Thunderball and You Only Live Twice than yours truly, I make the arguement that had Connery starred in OHMSS (as was originally intended when the film was to follow Thunderball), all of the elements that fans praise about the movie would probably not have come to fruition. Chances are that the producers would have kept a good formula going and, in the style of Twice, would have dispensed with many of the realistic and somber elements of the novel. It would have been too jolting for audiences to be asked to accept the jokey, cynical Bond of the previous two films as a sensitive and vulnerable soul. Instead, the title and probably only a few other elements would have been retained. This is all theorizing, of course, but it would seem unlikely that Broccoli and Saltzman would have had the incentive to toy with a formula that was still paying huge dividends at the box-office.

It's often been said that the era of slapstick and broad comedy in the Bond films began with Roger Moore's debut in the role in 1973. However, any objective assessment of the franchise clearly proves that these traits began with Connery's last Bond film for Eon Productions, Diamonds Are Forever (1971). Connery was lured back into the role after Lazenby's departure, thus giving both men the unique pop culture status of having succeeded each other in the role of Bond. Immediately, the formula reverted to what had been expected of a Connery Bond epic- only this time the humor was even more outrageous, with many of the key roles miscast and a script that more holes than a Swiss cheese. The real parlor game debate is not how good OHMSS would have been had Connery starred in it, but how good Diamonds Are Forever would have been if Lazenby had starred in it.

There's no reason to pity or pass a tin cup for George Lazenby. He's not only lived to see his one Bond film rise in stature in the fan community, but also among the more insightful critics. Additionally, although he still dabbles in acting, his wise business investments have made him a very rich man whose lifestyle would be the envy of Mr. Bond himself. However, his dubious decision to quit the role of a lifetime has left Bond fans with an eternal debate: how would the series have evolved had Lazenby stayed aboard for even one more film. It's a mystery no one can ever answer, but chances are it will be debated in pubs among 007 aficionados for decades to come. -Lee Pfeiffer

Hey, Diana Rigg was in it. nuff said.

Hey, Diana Rigg was in it. nuff said.

So's Patsy from Absolutely Fabulous.


I always liked OHMSS, I first saw it during a seventies James Bond-athon that was playing theatrically sometime after Diamonds are Forever was released. The skiing sequences were really well done, and the supporting cast was excellent. The only thing I still dislike about the film is the goofy speeded-up footage at the films beginning fight scene, which even as a pre-teenager I thought looked stupid.

Great link, Zorro. Thanks for posting.

Great link, Zorro. Thanks for posting.

No problemo.



I always liked OHMSS, I first saw it during a seventies James Bond-athon that was playing theatrically sometime after Diamonds are Forever was released. The skiing sequences were really well done, and the supporting cast was excellent. The only thing I still dislike about the film is the goofy speeded-up footage at the films beginning fight scene, which even as a pre-teenager I thought looked stupid.

I saw the movie when it premiered. I was just old enough to get Bond's line: "Just a slight stiffness coming on... " and considered myself quite sophisticated for understanding its meaning. :p

I watched the movie most recently about a year ago. One thing that struck me was the climactic assault on Blofeld's fortress. With the exception of the miniature shot of the fortress exploding, everything was shot live, in-camera, including the arial POVs. Well, of course, that's really the only way they could have done it in '69 - but the entire time I was watching that beautifully executed and thrilling sequence, I kept thinking - if this movie were being made now, no doubt the filmmakers would rely on CGI and posted effects to make the sequence "work". And it wouldn't be nearly as thrilling as a result.

I tried watching On Her Majesty's Secret Service several times. Can't do it. Boring and long. I only see a male model in a really long commercial ad. His lack of work since then shows his level of acting skills.

Connery and Craig are the only two that seem to enjoy the killing part. "Queen and Country? No, I like to kill people." A sociopath with a dream job.

Hopefully the producers can resist the urge to camp it up with puns and gadgets. It doesn't make it cooler, but detracts from the reality of the premise.
Why would they give a goverment worker millions of dollars of equipment? Cheaper to train a new guy. The Aston with the cloaking device was the worst. Besides being too sci-fi, its' technology would be more secret than the mission Bond was on.

I dunno... I just don't think Daniel Craig is gonna work as Bond.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/quantumofsolace/high.html

;)
Too late. He already does.

I tried watching On Her Majesty's Secret Service several times. Can't do it. Boring and long. I only see a male model in a really long commercial ad. His lack of work since then shows his level of acting skills.

Connery and Craig are the only two that seem to enjoy the killing part. "Queen and Country? No, I like to kill people." A sociopath with a dream job.

Hopefully the producers can resist the urge to camp it up with puns and gadgets. It doesn't make it cooler, but detracts from the reality of the premise.
Why would they give a goverment worker millions of dollars of equipment? Cheaper to train a new guy. The Aston with the cloaking device was the worst. Besides being too sci-fi, its' technology would be more secret than the mission Bond was on.
While I agree largely with what's stated here, I couldn't disagree more about OHMSS. In fact, I'd say that was one of the better Bond films. It is also (seemingly) a little known fact that Lazenby was not so shamed that he was forced out of the role, quite the opposite. Many fans and the filmmakers really liked him. Apparently he was more interested in other things and walked away from the part. I'd suggest you try to watch the fil again. The end especially makes Bond a very real character and not just a larger than life campy icon.

Actually, with the exception of Roger Moore, I've thought all the guys that have played Bond were pretty good.

I thought Roger Moore would have been a good James Bond if he hadn't been quite so old. I once reade that Roger Moor was Ian Fleming's first pick for the part of James Bond.

Hm. I read that David Niven was Fleming's original choice.

Here's somthing I found on Wikipedia about Roger Moore. I guess it had to do with his role in The Saint...

There are many apocryphal stories as to when Moore's name was first dropped as a possible candidate for the role of James Bond. Some sources, specifically Albert R. Broccoli from his autobiography When The Snow Melts, claim that Moore was considered for Dr. No, and that he was Ian Fleming's favourite for the role after apparently having seen Moore as Simon Templar in The Saint; however, the series did not begin airing in the United Kingdom until October 4, 1962 – one day before the premiere of Dr. No.

Hey, Diana Rigg was in it. nuff said.
So's Patsy from Absolutely Fabulous.
http://www.bondcollectibles.de/catalog/imagebank14/4175cs.jpg[/IMG-LEFT]
And don't forget Maya from [I]Space: 1999!
















Hopefully the producers can resist the urge to camp it up with puns and gadgets. . . The Aston with the cloaking device was the worst. Besides being too sci-fi, its' technology would be more secret than the mission Bond was on.My nominee for the silliest Bond gadget is a tossup between the Venetian gondola that transforms into a hovercraft in Moonraker and the Lotus Esprit that becomes a submarine in The Spy Who Loved Me. That car-submarine is about as realistic and practical as the Flying Sub. Yeah, Lazenby got a bum wrap.I assume you mean "a bum rap" -- unless he had salon treatments to get rid of cellulite!

Craig is much darker than any other Bond since Connery. He's one tough guy and wears his 00 status well.

Craig is much darker than any other Bond since Connery. He's one tough guy and wears his 00 status well.

I wouldn't characterize him as darker.. the anger isn't there simmering.. I'd say he's just deadlier. He can be fine, cheery, cordial or whatever and when it is time to kill, he will do so without hesitation or remorse.

The James Bond people know that they can change the actor and get away with it. So, it really doesn't matter which actor we like. When they change the character of James Bond, then fans may drop off. But, so far, they haven't changed Bond enough to hurt ticket sales... The baby boomer generation loves James Bond.

oh yeah baby!!!
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809961074/video/9655524

oh yeah baby!!!
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809961074/video/9655524

Yeah. Not bad at all.

Woo!!!

Ooh! And it's released on my birthday. What a nice present.:woohoo:

I'm excited. Let me tell you, that's becoming increasingly rare, that I get excited to go see a movie. So much of what passes for cinema today is recycled dried-up garbage vehicles for overworn and under-talented so-called "stars". But Casino Royale was complicated, interesting, mature, and damned exciting. Quantum of Solace looks every bit as good. Daniel Craig is still fresh, Dame Judi Dench is ALWAYS a treat, and James Bond is back to what James Bond should be.

Interesting title, too. Lots of meaning.

Gave me chills!