Sorry ladies...

Post by **The Sweeney** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:35 am

Sorry ladies....

http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php ... up_in_next

Daniel Craig To Keep Covered Up In Next Bond Film
New 007 Daniel Craig has told film bosses to cover him up in the next James Bond movie, after attracting attention for his physical prowess in the tight swimming trunks he wore for Casino Royale.

Craig's famous scene in skimpy blue shorts won over female fans, but the actor is keen for the next Bond film to focus on his acting talent, rather than his appearance, according to a British newspaper.

A source tells the Daily Express, "Daniel was a little uncomfortable at the amount of nudity he had to do. He appreciated that a lot of it was to win over the female fans but it's not something he wants to make a habit of, no matter how good he looks in his trunks."

Robert Stirling · Post by **Robert Stirling** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:49 am

The idea seems to be quite reasonable. If Craig really is such talented actor like it is commonly proclaimed, he'll be able to attract the audience with something more than his nudity.
By the way, CR appears to be the only film in the franchise so strongly focusing on Bond's pchysique. I wonder what is it? Sign of the times? Producers defiance (something like: 'Craig may have an odd face but look at his body')? All in all, I can't imagine any of the former Bond actors attracting attention the way Craig did. Maybe I'm politically incorrect but I still prefer Ursula Andress's emergence from the sea than his.

BondFan007 · Post by **BondFan007** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:08 am

Robert Stirling wrote:The idea seems to be quite reasonable. If Craig really is such talented actor like it is commonly proclaimed, he'll be able to attract the audience with something more than his nudity.

Just like he attracted the male audience.

By the way, CR appears to be the only film in the franchise so strongly focusing on Bond's pchysique. I wonder what is it? Sign of the times?

I seem to remember several shots of Connery in his trunks, it's not only Craig.

Post by **007** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:50 pm

Robert Stirling wrote: I wonder what is it? Sign of the times? Producers defiance (something like: 'Craig may have an odd face but look at his body')?

I think you may be on to something here.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:04 pm

007 wrote:
Robert Stirling wrote: I wonder what is it? Sign of the times? Producers defiance (something like: 'Craig may have an odd face but look at his body')?

I think you may be on to something here.

Whatever it was, it worked.....

Captain Nash · Post by **Captain Nash** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:54 am

007 wrote:
Robert Stirling wrote: I wonder what is it? Sign of the times? Producers defiance (something like: 'Craig may have an odd face but look at his body')?

I think you may be on to something here.

So with Craig being seen with his shirt off for say two-three minutes of screen time max, and that you're saying is the reason that everyone has enjoyed Casino Royale, doesn't say much for the cinema going audience for Casino Royale.

Post by **carl stromberg** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:37 pm

Bond would naturally wear a pair of swimming trunks when swimming; but having Daniel Craig emerge from the sea in pair of skin tight swimming trunks in slow motion: I found it a bit creepy actually, and I don't think Craig is a big fan of that scene. I don't think he likes being typecast. He could have easily made lots of money playing villians in crappy Morgan Freeman/Ashley Judd thrillers but he refused to.

But the scene served it's purpose - and detracted from Craig's face!

(only joking there so don't attack me!)