Here's another thing that bothers me about the new Bond, leaving the choice of Craig aside for a minute. The new movie is going to be without Q and Moneypenny, will be light on gadgets...and I'm guessing Bond's tendency for womanizing and one-liners as well.

On top of all that, after 20 films they are RESTARTING the story...meaning that the history of all those Bond movies is going to be erased for the new Bond. Even though various actors have played Bond in the past, there was always the sense that Connery's Bond was the same as Moore's Bond and the same as Brosnan's Bond. For example, there's a line in LICENSE TO KILL where Dalton's Bond turns down the garter from Felix's new wife and when she asks why, Felix says "He was married once, but it was a long time ago." - an obvious reference to the Bond played by Lazenby...and letting the audience know that this was the SAME GUY. This new Bond won't be that same guy...he'll be some new guy, and that to me is like insulting the 20 films that have come before...this is almost going to be like a NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN alternate universe Bond!

In short, this sucks. :)

Yeah, kinda like the Christian Bale Batman. I mean how can you look down upon Batman and Robin? ;)

What's the big deal? According to what I heard, Q and Moneypenny weren't really featured in the Casino Royale book. I'm sure other characters have been "amped up" for the movies in the past but they chose not to do it this time.

Are you sure that's what they're going to do? I haven't kept up with all the "inside" info on what the producers want to do with this film, but I'm not sure if they want to make this a new Bond a la Batman Begins. I realized Casino Royale is the first Fleming novel, but I doubt they do a strict adaptation of the novel. Hell, look at what they did to the Moonraker novel. It may end up being the same ole Bond, just younger. And Bond has gotten younger before (Moore to Daulton).

While I believe it's unreasonable to expect DAD or TWINE numbers, I think you're overemphasizing the actors too much. People go to see a Bond film, because it is a Bond film. Not because of the actors or actresses (and very few have any actual box office pull anyways). Transitioning to a new Bond is never easy, but I see no specific need to cast big names in the other roles.

From CommanderBond.Net:

So it's definitely going to be a "Bond Begins" type movie.

What if it's a prequel. I don't think that's ever happened in a Bond film before but... why not?

As much as I dislike the fact that they dumped a fantastic Bond, I just watched a press conference with Craig and I have to say, he seems like he might be a decent fit for the role after all.

Watch it for a while and judge for yourself:

http://www.pulse24.com/In_The_Raw/Ra.../Video-5-2.asx

When my wife and I finished watching the UK DVD of "Layer Cake" right after it came out, I told her that they should make this guy the new James Bond. They might have been talking to him before then, but I was unaware of it.

Needless to say, I'm very happy with this choice.

No, it's not a prequel. Shannon Nutt hit it right on the... er... nut. It's supposed to take place in present day with no Q or Moneypenny, a new Bond on one of his early 00 missions, and - to really confuse matters - Judi Dench is in negotiations to return as M. Definitely a reboot, which upsets me since I don't feel like Die Another Day was proper closure to a series I followed all my life that lasted 40 years. I don't even think the series was in such bad shape it needed "rebooting." (You would have thought DAD was a financial flop like Batman and Robin or something!)

Ironically, Pierce Brosnan got screwed out of two Bond films in the 80s (NBC forced him to return to Remington Steele after it was originally cancelled), and then he got screwed out of his last one (Casino Royale - by the Bond producers no less!). Combine that with the fact that Casino Royale is the one Bond novel many fans have wanted to see a faithful adaptation of all their lives, but it's now looking like it's going to be a blasphemous anti-Bond Bourne-Indentity-wannabe.

For me, I can now relate to Star Trek fans and understand what it's like to see a franchise you love go down the tubes after the driving creative force (in this case, Cubby Broccoli) passes away.

Watched Layer Cake last night to scope out Craig. I think the guy really resembles Steve McQueen. Moves like him and has the same haircut. I can't help imagining McQueen as Bond, portrayed like Bullitt. That's the impression I came away with. Instead of tongue in cheek car chase with the audience laughing, a Bullitt type car chase. Just have to wait and see.

That sounds a lot like what I'm hoping for. :thumbsup:

I dont really care who the new Bond is as long as the story is good. Though i do really like Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. Hopefully if they restart the series that they can make it as enjoyable as it has been.

I read those comments by Martin Campbell about how Bond's relationship with Vesper will show why he favors meaningless flings with all the subsequent Bond girls. Call me crazy, but I think the series already addressed this perfectly with Bond's wife being murdered on their wedding day.

But before that happened, Bond was already well-established as a womanizer.

I love me my Moneypenny. A shame there won't be one in the next 007 flick.

Did one of you send this? :p

I am writing to you in order to express my utter dissatisfaction with the casting of Daniel Craig as James Bond. I am a huge fan of the Bond films as well as the novels, and own many of the films on DVD as well as their soundtracks. As someone who is representative of those who regularly view Bond films, you must know that I am upset about Sony and EON Production dismissing Pierce Brosnan, and replacing him with a man who is better suited playing criminal types and villains. Mr. Craig is a fine actor, but altogether wrong for the role and way too unknown to draw any box office. I urge you bring this forward to the management of Sony group. They really need to reconsider the judgment of EON productions, whose ego and frugality have threatened to kill the James Bond movie franchise in the past. Thank you sincerely, Mario Bruno Staten Island, NY 10306 PS -- You should know that many Bond fans like me are organizing a website and public campaign to denounce the choice of Craig and petition that EON and Sony bring back Pierce Brosnan.

There was a rumor on some movie site that Dench was being canned as M because of the "prequel" nature. The rumor of David Suchet being the bad guy or new M was mentioned.

Sean Connery OKs New James Bond
LONDON -

Sean Connery thinks a blond Bond is just fine.

The former 007 says Daniel Craig is a "terrific choice" as the new British superspy.

Some eyebrows were raised in October when producers cast the sandy-haired, relatively unknown Craig in the next James Bond film, "Casino Royale."

But Connery, 75, told British Broadcasting Corp. television that he approved.

"Craig's a great choice, really interesting — different," Connery said in comments released Friday by the broadcaster. The full interview is due to air Monday.

"He's a good actor. It's a completely new departure," he added.

The respect is mutual. Craig told a news conference in October that Connery was his favorite 007.

Connery was the first actor to play Bond, appearing in six films beginning with "Dr. No" in 1962 and ending in 1971 with "Diamonds Are Forever."

Roger Moore, George Lazenby, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan have also starred as the womanizing, gadget-loving spy.

Connery said he'd left the role in part "because I got really fed up with the space stuff and special effects. I just found it getting more and more influential in the movies."

"Casino Royale" is due in theaters next November.

Vladimir Putin is the new Bond? Shouldn't he be governing Russia, this must be his part time job. No one can resist playing everyone's favorite spy!

I think the reason they hired this actor was for his deep voice.

I didn't bother to read this whole thread but adding my quick thoughts on a new Bond movie and Mr. Craig.

Saw L4yer Cake and thats about my only exposure to Daniel Craig but I liked it and him in it, isn't he a bit ugly to be Bond tho ? (not like Timothy Dalton was great looking IMO). Looks aside, he'd prolly do a good job. Also, are they taking a new direction or beginning with Bond, what exactly is this ? Sorry its late and I'm lazy to go over and read. I hope its more darker/mature/violent, something like The Bourne series. I never really liked the Bond movies much and their typical-ness and strict stickin to the "formula". Doesn't help that we have very few, if any, good action movies anymore, let alone with intelligence/sophistication. or maybe I'm just desensitized.

I thought they restarted Bond back in the early 90's?

http://www.omelete.com.br/imagens/ci...07/bond_jr.jpg

Now that you mention it a "Bourne" type film may be what they have in mind.

Bah. Clive Owen was perfect.

At least it's not Orlando Bloom. That would've been terrible.