Main reason why Craig is not Bond..

katied · Post by **katied** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:01 am

^Do a search for Daniel Craig pictures on Yahoo or Google and you will come up with a LOT of ugly pictures of Daniel Craig

Post by **bjmdds** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:37 pm

katied wrote:^Do a search for Daniel Craig pictures on Yahoo or Google and you will come up with a LOT of ugly pictures of Daniel Craig

Correct. That is a major flaw here for a lot of us, and it does not go with the traditional Bond concept, but more of a new-age grunge look, and that is disturbing to many.

Post by **carl stromberg** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:47 pm

To be fair to the Craigster, he has played a few strange characters in his films and has had to dress accordingly - which is why there are lots of bizarre photos on Google images!

james stock · Post by **james stock** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:11 pm

carl stromberg wrote:To be fair to the Craigster, he has played a few strange characters in his films and has had to dress accordingly - which is why there are lots of bizarre photos on Google images!

His interpretaion of Bond was pretty strange, a socialpath and an uncouth football hooligan with a crew cut. Looks more at home in a local drinking pit than a wine bar and whats with the gurning and pursed lips?

Post by **The Sweeney** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:16 pm

james stock wrote:
carl stromberg wrote:To be fair to the Craigster, he has played a few strange characters in his films and has had to dress accordingly - which is why there are lots of bizarre photos on Google images!
His interpretaion of Bond was pretty strange, a socialpath and an uncouth football hooligan with a crew cut. Looks more at home in a local drinking pit than a wine bar and whats with the gurning and pursed lips?

These comments are hardly new and original, and hardly bring anything fresh to the debate....

james stock · Post by **james stock** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:26 pm

The Sweeney wrote:
james stock wrote:
carl stromberg wrote:To be fair to the Craigster, he has played a few strange characters in his films and has had to dress accordingly - which is why there are lots of bizarre photos on Google images!
His interpretaion of Bond was pretty strange, a socialpath and an uncouth football hooligan with a crew cut. Looks more at home in a local drinking pit than a wine bar and whats with the gurning and pursed lips?
These comments are hardly new and original, and hardly bring anything fresh to the debate....

Sorry Sweeney

I think i would have to see what direction they take for the next film, i hope it will be more of a traditional Bond film and i hope it is not as dreary as the previous film.

I gotta be honest and say i personaly dont like the direction they are allegedly taking but i think to see something tangeble like a trailer or some stills might get me a little bit more enthusiastic about it.

Post by **The Sweeney** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:11 pm

james stock wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:
james stock wrote:
carl stromberg wrote:To be fair to the Craigster, he has played a few strange characters in his films and has had to dress accordingly - which is why there are lots of bizarre photos on Google images!
His interpretaion of Bond was pretty strange, a socialpath and an uncouth football hooligan with a crew cut. Looks more at home in a local drinking pit than a wine bar and whats with the gurning and pursed lips?
These comments are hardly new and original, and hardly bring anything fresh to the debate....
Sorry Sweeney I think i would have to see what direction they take for the next film, i hope it will be more of a traditional Bond film and i hope it is not as dreary as the previous film.

I gotta be honest and say i personaly dont like the direction they are allegedly taking but i think to see something tangeble like a trailer or some stills might get me a little bit more enthusiastic about it.

It's allright, ignore me....I've had a crap day at work today and just being ratty.

james stock · Post by **james stock** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:18 pm

The Sweeney wrote:
james stock wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:
james stock wrote:
carl stromberg wrote:To be fair to the Craigster, he has played a few strange characters in his films and has had to dress accordingly - which is why there are lots of bizarre photos on Google images!
His interpretaion of Bond was pretty strange, a socialpath and an uncouth football hooligan with a crew cut. Looks more at home in a local drinking pit than a wine bar and whats with the gurning and pursed lips?
These comments are hardly new and original, and hardly bring anything fresh to the debate....
Sorry Sweeney I think i would have to see what direction they take for the next film, i hope it will be more of a traditional Bond film and i hope it is not as dreary as the previous film.

I gotta be honest and say i personaly dont like the direction they are allegedly taking but i think to see something tangeble like a trailer or some stills might get me a little bit more enthusiastic about it.
It's allright, ignore me....I've had a crap day at work today and just being ratty.

Me too Sweeney! if i had my way i would live a life of leasure

Post by **bjmdds** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:01 pm

The Sweeney wrote:
james stock wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:
james stock wrote:
carl stromberg wrote:To be fair to the Craigster, he has played a few strange characters in his films and has had to dress accordingly - which is why there are lots of bizarre photos on Google images!
His interpretaion of Bond was pretty strange, a socialpath and an uncouth football hooligan with a crew cut. Looks more at home in a local drinking pit than a wine bar and whats with the gurning and pursed lips?
These comments are hardly new and original, and hardly bring anything fresh to the debate....
Sorry Sweeney I think i would have to see what direction they take for the next film, i hope it will be more of a traditional Bond film and i hope it is not as dreary as the previous film.

I gotta be honest and say i personaly dont like the direction they are allegedly taking but i think to see something tangeble like a trailer or some stills might get me a little bit more enthusiastic about it.
It's allright, ignore me....I've had a crap day at work today and just being ratty.

The BBC giving you slack Sweenster?

Post by **The Sweeney** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:49 pm

bjmdds wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:
james stock wrote:
The Sweeney wrote:
james stock wrote: His interpretaion of Bond was pretty strange, a socialpath and an uncouth football hooligan with a crew cut. Looks more at home in a local drinking pit than a wine bar and whats with the gurning and pursed lips?
These comments are hardly new and original, and hardly bring anything fresh to the debate....
Sorry Sweeney I think i would have to see what direction they take for the next film, i hope it will be more of a traditional Bond film and i hope it is not as dreary as the previous film.

I gotta be honest and say i personaly dont like the direction they are allegedly taking but i think to see something tangeble like a trailer or some stills might get me a little bit more enthusiastic about it.
It's allright, ignore me....I've had a crap day at work today and just being ratty.
The BBC giving you slack Sweenster?

Sony these days.....twice as bad!!

Post by **bjmdds** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:44 am

Sony not a good company? Is stock doing OK?

james stock · Post by **james stock** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:56 am

bjmdds wrote:Sony not a good company? Is stock doing OK?

I am o.k bjmdds a bit snowed under at work i am also doing a degree in Social Sciences (deep Stuff)

i really like this forum we may not agree on everything but there is a sense of community which is great

Post by **bjmdds** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:47 pm

james stock wrote:
bjmdds wrote:Sony not a good company? Is stock doing OK?
I am o.k bjmdds a bit snowed under at work i am also doing a degree in Social Sciences (deep Stuff) i really like this forum we may not agree on everything but there is a sense of community which is great

BA,Masters,or PhD? Hang in there. It will all be worth it.

james stock · Post by **james stock** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:36 pm

bjmdds wrote:
james stock wrote:
bjmdds wrote:Sony not a good company? Is stock doing OK?
I am o.k bjmdds a bit snowed under at work i am also doing a degree in Social Sciences (deep Stuff) i really like this forum we may not agree on everything but there is a sense of community which is great
BA,Masters,or PhD? Hang in there. It will all be worth it.

BA Honours bjmdds, in second year tough but fascinating

Congrats the Sweeney for landmark posting!

Post by **bjmdds** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:38 pm

james stock wrote:
bjmdds wrote:
james stock wrote:
bjmdds wrote:Sony not a good company? Is stock doing OK?
I am o.k bjmdds a bit snowed under at work i am also doing a degree in Social Sciences (deep Stuff) i really like this forum we may not agree on everything but there is a sense of community which is great
BA,Masters,or PhD? Hang in there. It will all be worth it.
BA Honours bjmdds, in second year tough but fascinating

Congrats the Sweeney for landmark posting!

Any particular discipline in social sciences?

Commander 0077 · Post by **Commander 0077** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:05 am

An entertaining and long commentary by an old-time Bond fan, Frank Hilario ---

American Chronicle: I, Moviegoer. Daniel Craig? Not Bond, James Bond.

Gary Seven · Post by **Gary Seven** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:32 pm

Many of the postive reviews of Casino Royale stated that Daniel Craig was not really playing James Bond in the movie.

james stock · Post by **james stock** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:53 pm

Gary Seven wrote:Many of the postive reviews of Casino Royale stated that Daniel Craig was not really playing James Bond in the movie.

Yes a bit of a contrdiction from the critics, well i guess if you like Bond being blonde, uncouth, craggy faced, humourless built like a gorilla and possesing the same intelligence then good look to them i say. Just dont call him Bond

Captain Arthurs · Post by **Captain Arthurs** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:09 pm

"Does not look the part" for me.

I could live with all those changes - but to then cast Daniel Craig as the young Bond? Why not a young actor, or even a Bond like actor?

Post by **English Agent** » Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:15 pm

Captain Arthurs wrote:"Does not look the part" for me.

I could live with all those changes - but to then cast Daniel Craig as the young Bond? Why not a young actor, or even a Bond like actor?

Whats a Bond like actor?...........No one actually knows, its just your personal interpretation of the role.

..........and yes how come your username is similar to mine ..........eh

AB

Classic Bond Forum

Main reason why Craig is not Bond..

What is your main criticism of Craig as Bond