Daniel Craig is the new James Bond - CONFIRMED

[Hammock Parties]

http://www.thisislondon.com/showbiz/articles/20594611?source=Daily%20Mail&ct=5

It's James Blond

By Nicole Lampert, Daily Mail, Showbusiness Editor

He has just proved his ladykilling credentials by seducing Sienna Miller from under the nose of his friend, Jude Law.

Now Daniel Craig is about to become the biggest seducer of all - Ian Fleming's James Bond.

The actor, who found fame as Geordie in the BBC series Our Friends in the North in 1996, got the job after an 18-month mission to replace Pierce Brosnan.

Scores of others, including Law himself, Ewan McGregor, Colin Farrell and Orlando Bloom, were considered but rejected.

In the end a shortlist of two emerged - Craig and newcomer Henry Cavill. The pair were auditioned again and tried on tuxedos to see how they would look in the quintessential Bond clothing.

Craig, 37, whose choice will be confirmed by producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson later this week, will be the sixth Bond, but the first blond.

He will star in the 21st Bond film, based on Ian Fleming's first book Casino Royale.

Craig has said he does not like the fact that the films are more about gadgets than feelings.

He added: 'It's a big machine and it makes a lot of money - so why would you change something that makes a lot of money?'

http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/photos/20050406.OBS3738.jpg

[Halfcan]

What is it with you and James Bond.

[Hammock Parties]

What is it with you and James Bond.

I believe this is my first James Bond thread.

And I still hope Ewan McGregor gets the job in a few years.

[JBucc]

They better dye his hair. Blond Bond would be gay.

[Halfcan]

Really, because there have been like three or more.

I thought I was going to get the gig-I am so bummed now. First I get banned from a Skins site-now this.

[Frankie]

As a kid of the 60s and a longtime BOND fan, I'm about to gag. I was so afraid of this. There are SO MANY better choices out there. :banghead:

[Hammock Parties]

As a kid of the 60s and a longtime BOND fan, I'm about to gag. I was so afraid of this. There are SO MANY better choices out there. :banghead:

Like who? No one listed in the article is superior.

[Frankie]

Like who? No one listed in the article is superior.
My personal choices are:

1- Hugh Jackman
2- Adrian Paul
3- Clive Owen
4- Gary Stretch (Recommended by Connery)
5- Mark Dymond

The last two are unknowns, but so was Connery when he became Bond.

[Hammock Parties]

UGH to Hugh Jackman.

I don't know enough about the others.

[Frankie]

UGH to Hugh Jackman.

I don't know enough about the others.

Adrian Paul http://www.e5movie.com/images/photos/paul_a.jpg

Gary Stretch http://www.dailyceleb.com/thumbs/tn.DC.210683.jpg

Mark Dymond http://www.dispatch.co.za/2002/08/10/entertainment/Images/DURNO3.JPG

[jspchief]

Who cares who the next Bond is? Those movies have sucked for the last two decades.

[Frankie]

Who cares who the next Bond is? Those movies have sucked for the last two decades.
There's evidently a new effort to go back to the original grittier Bond with the next movie.

[Halfcan]

Halfcan will not be the next Bond-CONFIRMED

[el borracho]

Terrible. They should have just stuck with Brosnan.

[Miles]

He was pretty good in Layer Cake. I think he is a great choice if they want to make a shift back to how the earlier ones were.

[Eleazar]

TORRENT!!!!

[Frankie]

Ladies and Gentlemen, your old and new James Bond(s):
http://www.bluematia.com/with_007.jpg
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :shake: :shake: :shake:

[HolmeZz]

He doesn't strike me as a Bond.

[KCChiefsMan]

what would it be like if they brought back Sean Connery?

[KCChiefsMan]

He was pretty good in Layer Cake. I think he is a great choice if they want to make a shift back to how the earlier ones were.

they're never gonna be like how the old ones were. The older ones were great no question, but the new ones rely more on effects and technology so acting and plot lack. Another reason is when the Bond films first came out, it shook the world because nobody has ever seen movies like that

[Dr. Chief]

Goldeneye was a great film.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Goldeneye was a great film.
%(/

Goldeneye was a good movie. There hasn't been a Bond movie made that could qualify as a film. Bond, XXX, Demolition Man = movie. The Godfather, Casablanca, Citizen Kane = film.

[jspchief]

%(/

Goldeneye was a good movie. There hasn't been a Bond movie made that could qualify as a film. Bond, XXX, Demolition Man = movie. The Godfather, Casablanca, Citizen Kane = film.ROFL at movie snobs.

[Hammock Parties]

%(/

Goldeneye was a good movie. There hasn't been a Bond movie made that could qualify as a film. Bond, XXX, Demolition Man = movie. The Godfather, Casablanca, Citizen Kane = film.

You magnificent bastard.

[Fire Me Boy!]

ROFL at movie snobs.
I'm not entirely certain I'd be 100% movie snob. I'm not trying to take ANYTHING away from "movies." Hell, I enjoy the Bond films (minus the Timothy Dalton era), Demolition Man is a favorite, and I even partake in the occasional Rambo. But "movies" are check-your-brain-at-the-door flicks, good for mindless entertainment, which again, isn't all bad. "Films" have some significant thing to say. Sometimes, myself included, we just aren't in the mood to watch a "film" and learn something or reflect, we want to watch shit explode... and I'm good with that.

If knowing the difference between a "movie" and a "film" makes me a movie snob... well... I've been called worse.

[Hammock Parties]

mov·ie
n.

1. A sequence of photographs projected onto a screen with sufficient rapidity as to create the illusion of motion and continuity.


film

n 1: a form of entertainment that enacts a story by a sequence of images giving the illusion of continuous movement;

[Fire Me Boy!]

mov·ie
n.

1. A sequence of photographs projected onto a screen with sufficient rapidity as to create the illusion of motion and continuity.


film

n 1: a form of entertainment that enacts a story by a sequence of images giving the illusion of continuous movement;
I'm not sure if you're meaning to make a point, but these actually say the same thing.

A movie, by the definition above, is little more than pictures on screen. A film, as above, actually tells a story. Now, I'll take it one step further... in order to be successful, a movie needs to tell a story. A film, is a story that needs to be told.

[Hammock Parties]

DOOM will be a great film!

I really need to see that movie A History of Violence!

[Fire Me Boy!]

DOOM will be a great film!
:banghead:

And no matter what you say, Star Wars is a movie.

[jspchief]

If knowing the difference between a "movie" and a "film" makes me a movie snob... well... I've been called worse.No. Feeling the need to impose your invented definitions on others, combined with the obligatory Citizen Kane reference is what makes you a snob.

[greg63]

Who cares who the next Bond is? Those movies have sucked for the last two decades.

Not that you need to but, you can say that again.

[Hammock Parties]

Fire Me Boy must really hate me. I own Lawrence of Arabia on DVD but I love a good chick flick, too.

MUST...SEE...ELIZABETHTOWN!

[greg63]

What is it with you and James Bond.

...and, what’s up with your post count?

[Hammock Parties]

What are you talking about? I posted a couple times back in 2002, forgot about the site, and then finally rediscovered it last night.

Great site!

[Fire Me Boy!]

No. Feeling the need to impose your invented definitions on others, combined with the obligatory Citizen Kane reference is what makes you a snob.
Actually, if you're going to call me a snob, it would probably have more to do with a complete and total disdain for directors like McG, actors like Vin Diesel, and movies like Miss Congeniality 2, not to mention a lack of anything resembling respect for "the lowest common denominator" audiences that urge the Hollywood machine to keep cranking out such dribble. That disdain comes from working in the industry, seeing scripts that have gone by the wayside because the LCD audience wouldn't watch it, and two decades of watching tripe on celluloid.

THAT, jspchief, makes me a movie snob, not referencing Citizen Kane or pointing out the difference between a "movie" and a "film."

If you're going to attempt an insult, you might try something to which I might take offense. "Movie snob" is not one of them.

:)

[Hammock Parties]

Out of curiousity, what failed scripts have you seen?

[Fire Me Boy!]

Fire Me Boy must really hate me. I own Lawrence of Arabia on DVD but I love a good chick flick, too.

MUST...SEE...ELIZABETHTOWN!
On the contrary, gochiefs. You apparently didn't get my post. As I said before, there's absolutely nothing wrong with chick flicks, mindless action, or horror movies. They have their place. I watched Rambo less than a week ago simply because I wasn't in the mood to THINK. I wanted mindless action, and that's what I was in the mood for. Lawrence of Arabia is an outstanding film, but Notting Hill is a good time. Movie/film watching is about entertainment -- whatever entertains you at the time, whether it's a socially significant film or Terminator -- it makes no difference, as long as you're entertained. The post was about the difference between "film" and "movie," that's all.

[Hammock Parties]

The post was about the difference between "film" and "movie," that's all.

The only difference is in your mind.

[jspchief]

It wasn't an attempt at an insult. I was just laughing at you.

As for lowest common denominator... it's called a difference in taste. I don't really care for movies who's biggest selling point is the pyrotechnics budget either. But I recognize that different people are entertained by different things. I'm sure there are people out there that think you spending 3 hours watching a football game is no more noble than someone who pays to see The Incredible Hulk. I think it's absurd that you think Hollywood should gear their movie production to your tastes, instead of their bottom line. It's like expecting record companies to stop making rock, rap, and pop because you're a big fan of folk music. It's fine if you don't like a certain type of movie, but walking around with your nose in the air about it is a sad combination of laughable and pathetic.

And besides the fact Hollywood is making movies to make money, you don't seem to recognize that making a great movie has more to do with talent than what Hollywood dictates. A great movie, like a great novel, is a rare thing, and doesn't happen simply because the publisher says "go write a good book".

I bet the movie industry is off the hook in Warrensburg Missouri.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Out of curiousity, what failed scripts have you seen?
I've seen a "thinker" version of White Noise that was infinitely better than the crap they put out; an absurdist romantic comedy that was outstanding, bought by a production company, and destroyed into a by the numbers romantic comedy, then shelved; I see very talented filmmakers struggle to tell their stories, which are new and exciting, while movies are constantly sequeled and remade. It's incredibly disheartening as a filmmaker to see a movie like Willard, which was pretty crappy to begin with, get turned into a crappy remake. Likewise with movies like The Honeymooners, or Bewitched.

[Fire Me Boy!]

It wasn't an attempt at an insult. I was just laughing at you.

As for lowest common denominator... it's called a difference in taste. I don't really care for movies who's biggest selling point is the pyrotechnics budget either. But I recognize that different people are entertained by different things. I'm sure there are people out there that think you spending 3 hours watching a football game is no more noble than someone who pays to see The Incredible Hulk. I think it's absurd that you think Hollywood should gear their movie production to your tastes, instead of their bottom line. It's like expecting record companies to stop making rock, rap, and pop because you're a big fan of folk music. It's fine if you don't like a certain type of movie, but walking around with your nose in the air about it is a sad combination of laughable and pathetic.

And besides the fact Hollywood is making movies to make money, you don't seem to recognize that making a great movie has more to do with talent than what Hollywood dictates. A great movie, like a great novel, is a rare thing, and doesn't happen simply because the publisher says "go write a good book".

I bet the movie industry is off the hook in Warrensburg Missouri.



Where have I gone wrong in my posts. How much more clearly can I say that there is NOTHING wrong with movies as sheer entertainment? Furthermore, where have I said I thought movies should be geared to my tastes? I don't walk around with my nose in the air because someone likes XXX. It's not my kind of movie, but as I've said no less than three times now, that doesn't mean it doesn't have its place. More often than not, I enjoy those kinds of movies. I couldn't sit down and watch the "great films" of the world without throwing in Die Hard, or Rocky. Hell, I enjoy Rocky IV as much as the first two. It's entertaining to me.

Furthermore, as I said, my disdain for the LCD audience is NOT because of their taste in movies, it's because Hollywood curbs the creation of "thinker" movies because the LCD audiences won't watch them. They're not moneymakers, so the stories don't get told, or rather they get morphed into something they will watch... aka, they get dumbed down.

And you can attack my town by belittling Warrensburg, but you'd be surprised at what someone can do with a little money, a little creativity, and a lot of ambition in the KC area -- there's a lot of independent film support in both KC and St. Louis. I'm 50 minutes from Kansas City.

You're right about a great movie having more to do with talent... and I did acknowledge that with my comment about disdain for directors like McG and actors like Vin Diesel. You apparently didn't get that disdain came from the fact that hacks like them are still employed.

[Fire Me Boy!]

As for lowest common denominator... it's called a difference in taste.
Sorry, you're wrong. It's an industry term for mass audience appeal. They're the reason some very good movies/films don't do squat at the box office. Yes, it's based in difference in taste, but it is an actual term that has an actual definition. LCD audiences are target audiences because they will appeal to the masses.



Here's the quickest thing I could find, I'm at work and spending WAY too much time arguing about this.

In the context of *mass media, the term is commonly used to refer to a target audience. The implication is that the media in question are targeted at the lowest expectations of an audience with a varying range of tastes. In this regard, it is often also used to mean "dumbest people", or those whose tastes match the lowest values of the wider audience. Action movies and most television programming are often considered to be targeted at the lowest common denominator of the population.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/l/lo/lowest_common_denominator.htm

[Fire Me Boy!]

Sorry about hijacking your thread, gochiefs. I'm out for a while, I must start working.

[Hammock Parties]

Can we get a mod to change FMB's user name to "Rosebud" ?

[Uatu]

Freakin' movie snobs.

Not ever movie is going to be exactly like the english patient or the piano, or whatever you consider quality to be. Just have fun with it or don't watch it. :rolleyes:

[Fire Me Boy!]

Can we get a mod to change FMB's user name to "Rosebud" ?
That would be very strange... that's my cat's name. Yeah... I know. I'm a snob.

[Hammock Parties]

That would be very strange... that's my cat's name. Yeah... I know. I'm a snob.

Have you ever screamed "STELLLLAAAAAAAAAA" during a moment of passion?

[jspchief]

Freakin' movie snobs.

Not ever movie is going to be exactly like the english patient or the piano, or whatever you consider quality to be. Just have fun with it or don't watch it. :rolleyes:You FOOL! The English Patient and the Piano are FILMS! Not *ugh* movies! Harumph! Some people.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Freakin' movie snobs.

Not ever movie is going to be exactly like the english patient or the piano, or whatever you consider quality to be. Just have fun with it or don't watch it. :rolleyes:



One last time, everybody who gets it, repeat! I'M NOT AGAINST MOVIES. I LIKE MOVIES. THEY DON'T ALL HAVE TO BE GREAT FILMS. I ENJOY ROCKY IV. I WATCH RAMBO. I OWN DEMOLITION MAN. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THESE MOVIES. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE GREAT TO BE ENTERTAINING.



Jesus, somebody explain to me how I'm not making this point by now.

[Hammock Parties]

You FOOL! The English Patient and the Piano are FILMS! Not *ugh* movies! Harumph! Some people.

YOU FOOL! THEY'RE "FLICKS."

[Fire Me Boy!]

Have you ever screamed "STELLLLAAAAAAAAAA" during a moment of passion?
Just that one time with your mom. Boy, was she pissed.


There's an LCD joke for you... everybody likes "mom" jokes.

[Hammock Parties]

Just that one time with your mom. Boy, was she pissed.


There's an LCD joke for you... everybody likes "mom" jokes.

http://movies.nnov.ru/Covers/Stop!%20Or%20My%20Mom%20Will%20Shoot.jpg

[Fire Me Boy!]

http://movies.nnov.ru/Covers/Stop!%20Or%20My%20Mom%20Will%20Shoot.jpg


:Lin:

:sulk:

[Fire Me Boy!]

There seems to be an abundance of Stallone LCD movies... Over the Top comes to mind, too.

[Eleazar]

So, are the worthy movies films or flicks? or just movies? I thought film just meant that the movie was recorded on film. Or is film the snobbery term that uppity 'films' use to refer to those plebian 'movies'? What about the ones that say 'a spike lee joint'. Are joints films or movies?

Man... to think I have paid to see movies and thought they were good films before. Oh how wrong I was.

Next up - What do you call burgers that are not 100% certified angus beef? And are you one of the worthless slobs that has eaten anything else before?

[Frankie]

Official announcement, tomorrow (Friday).

[Donger]

On a side note, Stallone has apparently signed up for Rocky VI and another Rambo movie.

[Fire Me Boy!]

I knew about Rocky VI, but I hadn't heard about Rambo... how sad.

[kregger]

Was Rich Scanlon in the running. He's got to be considered :Scanlon: Superman

[Raiderhater]

So, are the worthy movies films or flicks? or just movies? I thought film just meant that the movie was recorded on film. Or is film the snobbery term that uppity 'films' use to refer to those plebian 'movies'? What about the ones that say 'a spike lee joint'. Are joints films or movies?

Man... to think I have paid to see movies and thought they were good films before. Oh how wrong I was.

Next up - What do you call burgers that are not 100% certified angus beef? And are you one of the worthless slobs that has eaten anything else before?



That is EXACTLY what it means. This is a ridamndiculous discussion to be having.


Movie, flick, film, SEMANTICS.

[Fire Me Boy!]

That is EXACTLY what it means. This is a ridamndiculous discussion to be having.


Movie, flick, film, SEMANTICS.
Yet this comment might actually keep it going. Thanks! You've done a service to the board, I'm sure. :thumb:


:shake:




Yes, it's semantics. By that note, you can't call ANYTHING shot on digital a "film" because you're talking technical aspects alone. Believe it or not, there are more things to consider than the technical aspects when forming a definition. OBVIOUSLY, in this discussion, we're talking about an intangible, the creative aspect and the difference of movie or film.




Since people here either aren't getting it, or just think I'm a snob about it I'm done with this conversation. I was originally being a smartass, then changed to trying to make a point (which has been completely lost, misunderstood, and morphed into something else).

Flame away, I just don't care anymore.

[Raiderhater]

Oh yeah, I don't care for the choice of the new Bond. I would have liked for Brosnan to do one more, especially if the rumors are true about making the new film (heh heh heh) a little more like the originals. I have for some time thought that Brosnan was almost as good as Connery in the role, and that he was sufferring from the damn storylines.

[Frankie]

My personal choices are:

1- Hugh Jackman
2- Adrian Paul
3- Clive Owen
4- Gary Stretch (Recommended by Connery)
5- Mark Dymond

The last two are unknowns, but so was Connery when he became Bond.

For the curious:

Mark Dymond has the lead role in a SciFi channel movie tonight at 8 central time. Ok, Ok, the movie is "Dungeons and Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God!" But it might give you a chance to evaluate him as a possible future 007.

[Raiderhater]

Yet this comment might actually keep it going. Thanks! You've done a service to the board, I'm sure. :thumb:


:shake:


The line was begging to be agreed with after all the silliness I had just read.



Yes, it's semantics. By that note, you can't call ANYTHING shot on digital a "film" because you're talking technical aspects alone. Believe it or not, there are more things to consider than the technical aspects when forming a definition. OBVIOUSLY, in this discussion, we're talking about an intangible, the creative aspect and the difference of movie or film.

When shown in the theaters, what is the projector running? A compact disk, or film?


Since people here either aren't getting it, or just think I'm a snob about it I'm done with this conversation. I was originally being a smartass, then changed to trying to make a point (which has been completely lost, misunderstood, and morphed into something else).

Flame away, I just don't care anymore.

Next time, make a not so obvious smart ass remark with a smilie of some sort at the end. These two usually work pretty well - :p :D

[Frankie]

Oh yeah, I don't care for the choice of the new Bond. I would have liked for Brosnan to do one more, especially if the rumors are true about making the new film (heh heh heh) a little more like the originals. I have for some time thought that Brosnan was almost as good as Connery in the role, and that he was sufferring from the damn storylines.
Except for the first sentence, I agree with this entire post.

[Raiderhater]

Except for the first sentence, I agree with this entire post.



Craig just does not strike me as Bond, just like Dalton didn't.

[Fire Me Boy!]

When shown in the theaters, what is the projector running? A compact disk, or film?
The digitals that I've seen were high def tape. Not film.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Here's a site that has a quick rundown of several high def cameras, including the one Lucas used for Ep. II. It shoots on tape.

www.24p.bz/

On the technical aspect, if I shoot a movie on my XL1 (mini DV), then transfer it to film, is it a "film" simply because one print is on 35mm? Most people saw Ep. II as a "film" then, because most theaters were showing film prints. BUT, if you have the privilege of seeing Ep. II at the AMC in Olathe, likely you got to see the high-def, VIDEO print.

That's why this argument can't be made from a technical point of view, which is why I said we were talking about intangibles making the difference between film and movie.

Next time you get a chance to talk to another critic, ask them if there's a difference between "movie" and "film," beyond the technical aspect. I'll bet they do. That point of view is where I'm coming from... a quality and value statement about the movie/film in question. The whole movie vs. film discussion is nothing more than a qualitative judgment.

[BigRedChief]

The dude is old and going bald. Not exactly a first choice was he?

[KCChiefsMan]

I was pulling for Hugh Grant

[Frankie]

It's official now. Daniel Crud! :banghead:
http://commanderbond.net/Public/Stories/2949-1.shtml

[Frankie]

FBOW, here's your new 007:

http://commanderbond.net/gallery/cr_press/007craig