[ffolkes]

Here's what i posted on a Bond forum (yes i'm that much of a fan) about the movie... I'm too lazy to write it in short so i'll just copy paste it.


I'd personally say that IF "Casino Royale" is planned out to be a more grittier and "realistic" spy movie, (a la Bourne Identity etc) THEN Craig MIGHT work as 007. Here's why:

Daniel Craig doesn't look really like a male model, he looks more "real" in the sense that he could actually exist. Brosnan's facial features are so symmetrically perfect that he looks more like a fantasy character than an actual person... As bizarre as that sounds. Now I'm not saying that Craig wouldn't have charm, but he certainly looks more "roughed up by life" than Pierce ever did. This could work for Casino Royale's potentially more realistic take.

BUT: If "Casino Royale" will be just another Bond movie along the lines of DAD... then i think the franchise is truly in trouble. The public already recognizes Brosnan as Bond and pretty much likes the man as well. Sure, Pierce's movies could've been far better, especially the latest ones. But Brosnan himself has been very popular as 007. His movies also have made serious money for EON, so it's obviously a big risk not to have him on board.

Now that EON has confirmed Craig as Bond, i truly hope they will also try the more "realistic approach". It might not make that much money as DAD did, but it could certainly be a better film. The popcorn audience will probably turn their backs on it, but the hardcore Bond fans and spy-fans could appreciate it. Though Sony's involvement in all of this does sound a bit scary... i guess we'll just have to wait and see.

As to me: Who would've i liked to have seen as 007? Well, Pierce Brosnan. I think he deserved to leave the role with a better movie than Die Another Day.


That's all... It seems that Craig is already getting a huge pummelling from the fans, so i tried to explain my thoughts on some reasonable level. What do you think of the whole casion royale/daniel craig thing, matt?