Daniel Craig is officially the next Bond

Tools    





I would've rather seen Clive Owen but I'm excited to see what Daniel Craig does with the role. The only thing I remember seeing him in is Road to Perdition.
__________________
Remember, remember, the 5th of November
I'm afraid I must bid you adieu.
He woke up one night with a terrible fright
And found he was eating his shoe.



The Adventure Starts Here!
Well, in America you can still often tell or guess a person's heritage by their name, their looks, etc. And, unless you are a Native American/Indian, you have to say, "My family came to America from _____." Because, well, they did. I'm sure there are tons of families in countries in Europe whose ancestors have always lived in the very same area, always. There's no line of change from one country, one continent to another.

We're known as a melting pot for a reason. We have a common language, a common country, but different backgrounds and heritages. It's what makes us unique. And most of us do, I think, seamlessly flow from thinking of ourselves as American and/or then whatever our heritage is (in my case, German on my father's side and Scottish on my mother's side).

If you lived in England but your family emigrated there from another country in a previous century (let's say Italy), would it be so outrageous to think of yourself as both Italian (heritage) and British (citizenship)?

Perhaps it's something only Americans really understand, but we all do it here.



Casino Royale will be awesome, Clive Owen would be the best
__________________
"No, you made a big mistake, you forgot to flush" Dwight

"Walk down the right back ally in Sin City, and you'll find anything" Marv



Sir Sean Connery's love-child
Originally Posted by Austruck
Well, in America you can still often tell or guess a person's heritage by their name, their looks, etc. And, unless you are a Native American/Indian, you have to say, "My family came to America from _____." Because, well, they did. I'm sure there are tons of families in countries in Europe whose ancestors have always lived in the very same area, always. There's no line of change from one country, one continent to another.

We're known as a melting pot for a reason. We have a common language, a common country, but different backgrounds and heritages. It's what makes us unique. And most of us do, I think, seamlessly flow from thinking of ourselves as American and/or then whatever our heritage is (in my case, German on my father's side and Scottish on my mother's side).

If you lived in England but your family emigrated there from another country in a previous century (let's say Italy), would it be so outrageous to think of yourself as both Italian (heritage) and British (citizenship)?

Perhaps it's something only Americans really understand, but we all do it here.

I think American's need to have a heritage because their country is still relatively new and doesn't have as much history as others. I've always found when I'm in the States that most people after hearing my accent tell me of their heritage, i.e Irish, Scottish, Italian, etc.
My own family in Manhattan are fearcely proud of their Scottish heritage, even though most of my cousins have never set foot in Scotland, indeed they have more Scottish sounding names than the Scottish side, Bruce, Stuart, MacKenzie,and Jackson!!!
As a passionate Scot, I love Scottish history, and Scotland is one big melting pot made up of Norwegians, Swedes, French, and other Scandic countries. The Vikings were amongst the first settlers, hence we have celts, picts,etc that formed the first populous in Scotland. The different tribe colours are where tartan came from!
Here endeth the somewhat rusty history lesson!
I don't have a problem with people hanging on to heritage, it's important to know where you came from and what your family history is.
__________________
Hey Pepe, would you say I have a plethora of presents?


Toga, toga, toga......


Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbour?



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally Posted by Austruck
Well, in America you can still often tell or guess a person's heritage by their name, their looks, etc. And, unless you are a Native American/Indian, you have to say, "My family came to America from _____." Because, well, they did. I'm sure there are tons of families in countries in Europe whose ancestors have always lived in the very same area, always. There's no line of change from one country, one continent to another.
There's been plenty of movement of people going on in Europe over time, there's both good and bad examples of that. To take just one example regarding my own country: the misconception that all swedes are blonde wouldn't have been a misconception a couple of centuries or a thousand years ago. But due to migrations from east and south, nowadays swedes are not all blonde of course and, simultaneously, lots of the immigrants were of course blonde too.

I think the difference between America and Europe is not the level of migration that has taken place over time, but the fact that immigrants that came to a certain country in Europe came to an allready existing culture and sooner or later had to adapt to that culture. Immigrants who came to America came to either a land of wilderness or a land inhabited of indians, whose culture wasn't appealing to the immigrants. Therefore they could and did preserve the culture they brought with them from their european country. When modernity set in it became more and more important to have your own group of people to turn to which strenghtens the bonds to "your own kind". To me it often seems like (white) America towards the rest of the world stands pretty much unified in one american culture, while domestically your heritage play a bigger part in culture terms.

We're known as a melting pot for a reason. We have a common language, a common country, but different backgrounds and heritages. It's what makes us unique. And most of us do, I think, seamlessly flow from thinking of ourselves as American and/or then whatever our heritage is (in my case, German on my father's side and Scottish on my mother's side).
I know that, and that's why I said I think it's interesting. Never said there was anything wrong with it...

If you lived in England but your family emigrated there from another country in a previous century (let's say Italy), would it be so outrageous to think of yourself as both Italian (heritage) and British (citizenship)?
If my ancestors emigrated from Italy 200 years ago and ever since then my family had only married other italian immigrants, then sure I would probably consider myself italian. My grandmother was/is polish (I don't know whether she's still alive) but I've had no contact with her or polish culture so I feel 0% polish - even though I really am 25% polish. My point is that americans even though they, as you yourself stated, share the same language and the same culture (realtively speaking) they still hang on pretty hard to their heritage, even though no family member has ever been to "the old country" or speak that language. And that, I find interesting. Not dumb or a sign of that american culture is low. Just interesting.

Perhaps it's something only Americans really understand, but we all do it here.
Great! Keep doing it there!
__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but
now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.



so...actually, the only scotish person here is darth right?
oh and isn't daniel craig a bit too oldish to be the new bond? still, i think it will be interesting to see him as bond...



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally Posted by adidasss
so...actually, the only scotish person here is darth right?
oh and isn't daniel craig a bit too oldish to be the new bond? still, i think it will be interesting to see him as bond...
Craig is 37. Brosnan was 42 when he did his first Bond movie. Roger Moore was 46. Connery was 32 but on the other hand, he's looked like 45 all his life. I think Craig has just about the right age. Bond is a sophisticated man, not a boyish hunk. But he doesn't look like a Bond to me at all.. but perhaps that's a good thing.

Now, I've heard some rumours that Angelina Jolie is wanted for the job as a bad Bond bitch (oh I'm sorry, I couldn't stop myself...). And what about the director job? I saw Tarantino on Leno some time ago where he said he was dying to remake Casino Royale. What's the story on that?



Originally Posted by Piddzilla
Craig is 37. Brosnan was 42 when he did his first Bond movie. Roger Moore was 46. Connery was 32 but on the other hand, he's looked like 45 all his life. I think Craig has just about the right age. Bond is a sophisticated man, not a boyish hunk. But he doesn't look like a Bond to me at all.. but perhaps that's a good thing.

Now, I've heard some rumours that Angelina Jolie is wanted for the job as a bad Bond bitch (oh I'm sorry, I couldn't stop myself...). And what about the director job? I saw Tarantino on Leno some time ago where he said he was dying to remake Casino Royale. What's the story on that?
37? he looks well over 40....we'll just have to wait and see...



What I find really interesting is how Bond has become this 20th century iconic GQ man--the modern icon of courtly sophistication and suave, mature intelligence-- thanks to Sean Connery. If you compare that image with the sort of character that Ian Fleming describes in his novels, you will be able to truly appreciate the irony in that. True, Bond is no boyish punk, but neither is he the sort of character played by Connery or Brosnan. Fleming describes him kind of like a terrorist working for the British government. In fact, in his novels, Fleming uses the words "spy" and "terrorist" interchangeably. I guess the closest approximation to the kind of character Bond is supposed to be would be to liken him to a mafia-style hit man--a contract killer or assassin. I'd say that Timothy Dalton probably came pretty close to Bond in his movies, by making him a dour, unsympathetic anti-hero. Basically, the character of Bond is pretty sinister--a reflection of the grim world of cold-war politics in the 1950s.



Sir Sean Connery's love-child
Originally Posted by adidasss
so...actually, the only scotish person here is darth right?
oh and isn't daniel craig a bit too oldish to be the new bond? still, i think it will be interesting to see him as bond...

Nope, the Blister Exists is a scot too!!!
Craig is not too old to play Bond, you have to remember that in the books Bond has several years of Naval service behind him before he even starts his life as a secret agent.
I'm looking forward to seeing Craig as Bond, but I thought he seemed a little uneasy at the press junket, hopefully this was just nerves and he will settle into the role.



Originally Posted by Darth Stujitzu
Nope, the Blister Exists is a scot too!!!
and proud of it!

I'm interested in what the new Bond shall bring to the series. Hopefully things for the better.

(also, adidasss, it's scottish )



I will always love Daniel Craig for breaking up Jude and Sienna. Good work!



Originally Posted by The Blister Exists
and proud of it!

I'm interested in what the new Bond shall bring to the series. Hopefully things for the better.

(also, adidasss, it's scottish )
sorry, no offense intended, i just don't do very well in spelling....



There are those who call me...Tim.
Originally Posted by Monkeypunch
That's because Scottish people are the best people in the world.
well, us and the Welsh folks. heh.


Anyway, I'm still a little skeptical about Daniel Craig. He pulled Layer Cake off pretty good, and he wears a tuxedo well, but I can't quite imagine him saying those immortal words "Bond, James Bond", or asking for a Vodka Martini. Still, I can't see him growling those lines at us like Dalton either.

Also I'm a little confused about the future of the series. I know they're going back to the beginning and filming Casino Royale, but are they starting the franchise from scratch? Will this officially be Bond 21, or Bond 1? If it is the latter, what will they do for the follow up? Will it be a sequel to the new film (like the sequel to Batman Begins, effectively ignoring the other films)?



Piledriver's Avatar
Registered User
Daniel Craig did a great job in LAYERCAKE and he should have no problem portraying Bond. He is a good choice, but I thought for sure they would've gone with Gerard Butler... oh well. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
__________________
"Vader...You Must Confront Vader..."



Originally Posted by Piledriver
Daniel Craig did a great job in LAYERCAKE and he should have no problem portraying Bond. He is a good choice, but I thought for sure they would've gone with Gerard Butler... oh well. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
After watching Layer Cake, I agree that Daniel Craig would make a good Bond--if he dyes his hair black and improves his accent.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Originally Posted by Piddzilla
I saw Tarantino on Leno some time ago where he said he was dying to remake Casino Royale. What's the story on that?
"Bond Mother F*cker, James Bond"
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews