Oh for the love of Pete

[Kristatos]

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.ph ... 3&id=43836

Why not just hire Matt Damon as Bond and have done with it?

[BondFan007]

He's also working on Indiana Jones - so what if he's worked on Bourne? Is Spiderman the same as Bourne? Is Superman Returns? He's worked on over 100 movies, it doesn't mean he has the same style in everyone.

[Kristatos]

He's also working on Indiana Jones - so what if he's worked on Bourne? Is Spiderman the same as Bourne? Is Superman Returns? He's worked on over 100 movies, it doesn't mean he has the same style in everyone.

I'll bet it wasn't his work on Spiderman that got him the Bond gig.

[The Sweeney]

Excellent news!!

If only Greengrass himself could be directing 22 as well - then it would be perfect!!

[carl stromberg]

Unfortnately, Daniel Craig is playing James Bond.

[Kristatos]

Excellent news!!

If only Greengrass himself could be directing 22 as well - then it would be perfect!!

If you're happy for Bond to just be a Bourne copycat franchise, yeah. Personally, I think they should get Spielberg to direct, and make Bond into an archaeologist who fights Nazis in the 1930's. Or maybe Jay Roach, who could make them into comedies with Bond being awakened after having been cryogenically frozen in the 60's. Who the hell wants to see another Bond film, after all.

[BondFan007]

He's also working on Indiana Jones - so what if he's worked on Bourne? Is Spiderman the same as Bourne? Is Superman Returns? He's worked on over 100 movies, it doesn't mean he has the same style in everyone.

I'll bet it wasn't his work on Spiderman that got him the Bond gig.

No, I'll bet it lies with his skills as a second unit director, on a combination of films.

[The Sweeney]

Excellent news!!

If only Greengrass himself could be directing 22 as well - then it would be perfect!!

If you're happy for Bond to just be a Bourne copycat franchise, yeah. Personally, I think they should get Spielberg to direct, and make Bond into an archaeologist who fights Nazis in the 1930's. Or maybe Jay Roach, who could make them into comedies with Bond being awakened after having been cryogenically frozen in the 60's. Who the hell wants to see another Bond film, after all.

Bourne copied Bond. When I say Bond, I mean the original gritty Fleming Bond. Not the imposter Bond that resided throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's.

Now Bond is having to play catch-up again by copying Bourne, that copied Bond.....confusing ain't it.

[Captain Nash]

I thought you'd all like this one.
The Bourne thing continues.
As per usual a few fans have made up their minds before the film is finished.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

Excellent news!!

If only Greengrass himself could be directing 22 as well - then it would be perfect!!

If you're happy for Bond to just be a Bourne copycat franchise, yeah. Personally, I think they should get Spielberg to direct, and make Bond into an archaeologist who fights Nazis in the 1930's. Or maybe Jay Roach, who could make them into comedies with Bond being awakened after having been cryogenically frozen in the 60's. Who the hell wants to see another Bond film, after all.

[Kristatos]

Bourne copied Bond.

So you keep saying, but Indiana Jones and Austin Powers were also influenced by Bond, which is the point I was making. The Bond franchise doesn't have to copy Bourne, it chooses to do so, to its detriment. If I want to see a Bourne film, I'll watch a Bourne film, not a Bond film pretending to be a Bourne film.

[The Sweeney]

Bourne copied Bond.

So you keep saying, but Indiana Jones and Austin Powers were also influenced by Bond, which is the point I was making. The Bond franchise doesn't have to copy Bourne, it chooses to do so, to its detriment. If I want to see a Bourne film, I'll watch a Bourne film, not a Bond film pretending to be a Bourne film.

No, but AP and Indy are nothing like the Bond books. Bourne (action-wise) is. It only feels right that the producers should return to this gritty, edgy, more realistic spy formula.

[james stock]

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.ph ... 3&id=43836

Why not just hire Matt Damon as Bond and have done with it?

Why not cast Damon as Bond, shake the camera a bit more for a little Atmos docu drama like and the retitle the film the Bond Supremacy and the third one The Bond Ultimatum.
Also stick Brian Cox in there as a shady M who will sell Bond out and make him a rogue assasin.

[English Agent]

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.ph ... 3&id=43836

Why not just hire Matt Damon as Bond and have done with it?

Why not cast Damon as Bond, shake the camera a bit more for a little Atmos docu drama like and the retitle the film the Bond Supremacy and the third one The Bond Ultimatum.
Also stick Brian Cox in there as a shady M who will sell Bond out and make him a rogue assasin.

I hope Bond 22 doesn't have wobbly camera work..............or i'll go nuts.

Oops i'am nuts.

[Terry]

I found this post on the latest AIC Bond talkback regarding the BOURNE influenced new Bond.

BOURNE-LITE

It's become quite apparent that fans of the new CASINO ROYALE are casual Bond fans at best, if that, as longtime Bond fans such as myself regard CR as "Bourne-lite" at best. First off, Craig is a horrible actor, better cast as someone's henchman than the lead. Want proof? LAYER CAKE isn't exactly setting sales records on the DVD charts, nor is he pulling in fans to see THE INVASION. Christ, even the studios aren't exactly playing him up in the promotional material in any of the major releases he's recently starred in or will be seen in. Take MUNICH, which one would have thought would have seen the posters and tv spots playing up the fact they had the new Bond among their cast. If anything, they did quite the opposite, featuring him in less than 48 FRAMES - if that - in any of the trailers. He hasn't fared much better in the material for THE INVASION or THE GOLDEN COMPASS, neither of which would lead you to believe he was at least a co-star in either of these after one had viewed the trailers. The most prominent placement of his image has been the one-sheet for THE INVASION, but based on the box-office returns it doesn't say much for his ability to draw an audience. To add insult to injury, NONE of the Bond promotional material even once played up Daniel Craig as Bond. It was like they were test-marketing for the future -- see, we can place any trained monkey in the role of Bond and the rubes will still show up. Even George Lazenby received better marketing than Craig when OHMSS was released, but not by much. Contrast how Brosnan was promoted when he took over the role, and it's light years beter treatment than anything Craig has received thus far. All the Craig supporters can rave about how good the guy is to their hearts content, but the jury's still out and so far it doesn't look promising from either the Hollywood studios or American audiences on whether he'll ever be more than a B-list player that some are willing to take a chance on. As for the film CR itself, all it did was create a divide between long-time fans such as myself who have no interest in the "rebooted" version or any sequels to follow, and those who will settle for any piece of crap market-tested for their sensibilities. Bond films used to be the trendsetter whether it was the stunts, editing, visual design, marketing or any of the other myriad of aspects that made a Bond film a Bond film. Not any longer. CR was more influenced by the Bourne films than they were interested in setting the standard once again, unlike the attitude they took when they were making GOLDENEYE, a film where within the first 30 seconds featured a jaw-dropping stunt that literally dropped one into the story and sold Pierce Brosnan as Bond within half-a-minute later. Whereas with CR, many a person in the audience was left scratching their heads at the end of the film wondering who the thug was playing James Bond. One other aspect about CR that was a huge negative: the action sequences were actually far more cartoonish than anything ever featured in even a Moore Bond. For all the talk of how realistic this Bond was, the scenes at the construction site and airport were so over the top I even expected Nick Nack to make an appearance.

[English Agent]

..........Interesting post you found there 'Terry'

Obviously from a Brosnan fan.

I disagree with most of it......but there is one small point about whether
Craig will be an A-list Hollywood star.............personaly i think its too early to say yet, have to wait to see how he fares in the next Bond and his future non Bond films.

EA

[Commander 0077]

I found this post on the latest AIC Bond talkback regarding the BOURNE influenced new Bond.

BOURNE-LITE

It's become quite apparent that fans of the new CASINO ROYALE are casual Bond fans at best, if that, as longtime Bond fans such as myself regard CR as "Bourne-lite" at best. First off, Craig is a horrible actor, better cast as someone's henchman than the lead. Want proof? LAYER CAKE isn't exactly setting sales records on the DVD charts, nor is he pulling in fans to see THE INVASION. Christ, even the studios aren't exactly playing him up in the promotional material in any of the major releases he's recently starred in or will be seen in. Take MUNICH, which one would have thought would have seen the posters and tv spots playing up the fact they had the new Bond among their cast. If anything, they did quite the opposite, featuring him in less than 48 FRAMES - if that - in any of the trailers. He hasn't fared much better in the material for THE INVASION or THE GOLDEN COMPASS, neither of which would lead you to believe he was at least a co-star in either of these after one had viewed the trailers. The most prominent placement of his image has been the one-sheet for THE INVASION, but based on the box-office returns it doesn't say much for his ability to draw an audience. To add insult to injury, NONE of the Bond promotional material even once played up Daniel Craig as Bond. It was like they were test-marketing for the future -- see, we can place any trained monkey in the role of Bond and the rubes will still show up. Even George Lazenby received better marketing than Craig when OHMSS was released, but not by much. Contrast how Brosnan was promoted when he took over the role, and it's light years beter treatment than anything Craig has received thus far. All the Craig supporters can rave about how good the guy is to their hearts content, but the jury's still out and so far it doesn't look promising from either the Hollywood studios or American audiences on whether he'll ever be more than a B-list player that some are willing to take a chance on. As for the film CR itself, all it did was create a divide between long-time fans such as myself who have no interest in the "rebooted" version or any sequels to follow, and those who will settle for any piece of crap market-tested for their sensibilities. Bond films used to be the trendsetter whether it was the stunts, editing, visual design, marketing or any of the other myriad of aspects that made a Bond film a Bond film. Not any longer. CR was more influenced by the Bourne films than they were interested in setting the standard once again, unlike the attitude they took when they were making GOLDENEYE, a film where within the first 30 seconds featured a jaw-dropping stunt that literally dropped one into the story and sold Pierce Brosnan as Bond within half-a-minute later. Whereas with CR, many a person in the audience was left scratching their heads at the end of the film wondering who the thug was playing James Bond. One other aspect about CR that was a huge negative: the action sequences were actually far more cartoonish than anything ever featured in even a Moore Bond. For all the talk of how realistic this Bond was, the scenes at the construction site and airport were so over the top I even expected Nick Nack to make an appearance.

Shocking, Terry, Shocking And you save perhaps the best for last in your last few lines '.... for all the talk ...." With your permission, I'll include some in the "Fleming Describes a Craigian Bond"

However, of course, not all pro-Craigers are not casual Bond fans, as noted of the Double-Os on this site. I consider them still Double-Os, with one foot in an alternate universe .... but they are very welcomed here.

[james stock]

I found this post on the latest AIC Bond talkback regarding the BOURNE influenced new Bond.

BOURNE-LITE

It's become quite apparent that fans of the new CASINO ROYALE are casual Bond fans at best, if that, as longtime Bond fans such as myself regard CR as "Bourne-lite" at best. First off, Craig is a horrible actor, better cast as someone's henchman than the lead. Want proof? LAYER CAKE isn't exactly setting sales records on the DVD charts, nor is he pulling in fans to see THE INVASION. Christ, even the studios aren't exactly playing him up in the promotional material in any of the major releases he's recently starred in or will be seen in. Take MUNICH, which one would have thought would have seen the posters and tv spots playing up the fact they had the new Bond among their cast. If anything, they did quite the opposite, featuring him in less than 48 FRAMES - if that - in any of the trailers. He hasn't fared much better in the material for THE INVASION or THE GOLDEN COMPASS, neither of which would lead you to believe he was at least a co-star in either of these after one had viewed the trailers. The most prominent placement of his image has been the one-sheet for THE INVASION, but based on the box-office returns it doesn't say much for his ability to draw an audience. To add insult to injury, NONE of the Bond promotional material even once played up Daniel Craig as Bond. It was like they were test-marketing for the future -- see, we can place any trained monkey in the role of Bond and the rubes will still show up. Even George Lazenby received better marketing than Craig when OHMSS was released, but not by much. Contrast how Brosnan was promoted when he took over the role, and it's light years beter treatment than anything Craig has received thus far. All the Craig supporters can rave about how good the guy is to their hearts content, but the jury's still out and so far it doesn't look promising from either the Hollywood studios or American audiences on whether he'll ever be more than a B-list player that some are willing to take a chance on. As for the film CR itself, all it did was create a divide between long-time fans such as myself who have no interest in the "rebooted" version or any sequels to follow, and those who will settle for any piece of crap market-tested for their sensibilities. Bond films used to be the trendsetter whether it was the stunts, editing, visual design, marketing or any of the other myriad of aspects that made a Bond film a Bond film. Not any longer. CR was more influenced by the Bourne films than they were interested in setting the standard once again, unlike the attitude they took when they were making GOLDENEYE, a film where within the first 30 seconds featured a jaw-dropping stunt that literally dropped one into the story and sold Pierce Brosnan as Bond within half-a-minute later. Whereas with CR, many a person in the audience was left scratching their heads at the end of the film wondering who the thug was playing James Bond. One other aspect about CR that was a huge negative: the action sequences were actually far more cartoonish than anything ever featured in even a Moore Bond. For all the talk of how realistic this Bond was, the scenes at the construction site and airport were so over the top I even expected Nick Nack to make an appearance.

This is one of the best posts i have read so far, it decribes the film and its objectives perfectly and also these people who seem to want to rubbish any other Bond actor or film. i cant tell you how the film upset me so much because i did go in with an open mind, i could not get over how unentertaining it was and worst of all boring. The action scenes were over done top the extent that they became laughable, i mean Bond chasing someone imsisting that he wants them alive and then at the end killing him.
He also shows absolutely no regard for inoccent human lives, and they call him a hero!!!