Some Folks, You Just Can’t Reach.
Posted by SinisterDan on 29 March , 2007
After a bit of a vacation – my wife insists on calling it “time in lock-up” – I’ve been vexed about what to use as a subject. More political scandals have popped than potential fathers for Anna Nicole’s baby. In the ADHD world of American politics, the Senate and House have passed differing resolutions to ramp down the war in Iraq; apparently because they never traded business card last January and all the while, the Department of Justice is trying to get past its case of recto-cranial insertion. China continues to ban the crap out of me, firing me down a hole of teh internets obscurity…buried alive…buried alive…
KHAAAAAN!!
Instead, because it’s really starting to annoy me, I want to take a bite out of the meat-and-cheese-heads at danielcraigisnotbond.com.
That’s right Jim, that’s my beef. Only here will you find hard-hitting commentary on a story that ran its course about a year ago – oh yeah baby, I’m the rusty spot on the cutting edge.
For those Luddites among you who do not know this saga, the Daniel Craig is Not Bond people are a group of chronic soreheads who became shrill like frightened schoolgirls when Sony and Eon fired Pierce Brosnan for Daniel Craig. They claimed that he could not play the part because he is blond, too short and (my personal favorite) he looks like a boxer. Oh yeah, he’s really blond.
Daniel Craig, they whine, is not sufficiently suave and will kill the legendary secret agent. He is, they bleat, going to destroy the legacy of Ian Fleming and the 007-film franchise because he is not sufficiently in line with the casting of Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan.
If I boil this down to its barest parts, this sounds a lot like my 3 year-old when she wants the pink toothpaste but is forced to use the blue toothpaste.
I’m sure that its been pointed out to these gas bags that in Ian Fleming’s mind, Sean Connery was also entirely inappropriate for the role. Connery was too big, Fleming noted and he also took exception with Connery for being overly muscular (he looked like a body-builder, after all) and , like Craig, not sufficiently suave. Further, as a keen observer of the human condition, Fleming also noted that Connery was a native of Scotland and upon further investigation, this was not the same place as England at all.
Fleming’s first choice was apparently David Niven. Niven was a fine actor as well as a decorated veteran of the Second World War and by all accounts a delightful man. But as Bond, I think that Niven’s casting would have required that the main villain of Doctor No be changed from a psycho with metal hands to a corrupt but insecure Soho banker.
In the climax of the film, Bond would wither Loans Assessor No into mush as he repeatedly says witty things in between martinis in a flurry of pulse pounding after-dinner chat. His ego shredded by the merciless onslaught of British sarcasm and received pronunciation, Loan Assessor No turns himself in to the authorities while Bond remains comfortably seated in order to aid digestion.
When the film was released, Fleming was so impressed with the lump of Scottish muscle that he retconned Bond’s history to include Highland Scots in the family tree.
You can probably see where I’m going with this.
Casino Royale, with Daniel Craig as James Bond, was among the best-reviewed Bond films of all time and it was also either first or second best in the history of the franchise at the box office. Sadly, it did lack the campy aspects of previous films;
1. Super-sexualized leading ladies: I can’t imagine how we outgrew lines like; “Good evening Mister Bond, my name Professor Velvet Manlicker”. The low in this was casting Denise Richards as a hot pants-wearing nuclear physicist named Christmas Jones who spawned one of the worst lines in the history of all possible universes when it was noted that Bond thought that “Christmas only comes once a year…”
Yes, let’s do our best to preserve that caliber of film-making.
2. High-tech gadgets; Casino Royale was bereft of wristwatches that folded out to reveal an Aegis-class destroyer. The most advanced piece of technology in the film was whatever they used to keep Caterina Murino from flopping out of her bikini while riding a horse.
3. Black hair.
Personally, I was pleased that they took the material a little more seriously for a change and hired a guy who looked like he could actually throw a punch.
When Michael Keaton was cast as Batman with Jack Nicholson as the Joker, purists shriveled. Ditto for when Star Trek was rebooted with a bald Englishman or when that other guy took over for Jesus after the crucifixion.
They were wrong too – welcome to the club.
Listed on humor-blogs.com









29 March , 2007 at 7:56 pm
I don’t know. I love the Bond franchise. Casino Royale was definately a different Bond film. it felt a bit more like the second of Timothy’s Dalton’s movies (License to Kill, I believe). Much darker and sinister than the others. I enjoyed it in the movie theater, but I need to see it again at home to really process it. I had no problem with Daniel Kraig; although I did like Pierce Brosnan. But the movie - as you noted - was not typical to the formula.
The real question is this: can Bond survive the aging of the baby boom generation. I’m only 30 but when I go to see a Bond movie I’m one of the youngest in the crowd. Compare this to my experiences with my viewings of the Bourne Identity and the Bourne Supremacy where I was actually one of the older people in the audience. I don’t know what the plans are for the Bourne movies. I’d love to see several more. If they make anymore, it may well be Bond for the next generation.
29 March , 2007 at 10:03 pm
Craig’s Bond was the best since Connery. And I’m a fan of Brosnan anyway.
Also, thank you for noting Keaton in Batman… I thought I was the only one who had that sentiment.
Picard > Kirk.
30 March , 2007 at 11:10 am
J4Jesus,
I would think that the point of the transformation of the franchise in Casino Royale is aimed precisely at reflecting more contemporary tastes while still trying to keep as much of the character as possible. I’m a long-time fan of the Bond movies and I’ve seen all of them, even when I could tell they were very likely going to suck. Let’s be honest, the recent legacy of the franchise was pretty awful. Invisible cars? Denise Richards? The villain with the disco ball face?
The camp was killing the movies far more than the retooling that we see now. I think that the people who will only allow for a Bond movie to be made their way miss the point - the franchise needs to be viable into the future for there to be any more Bond movies.
Plus, Casino Royale was a hell of a good film, and I went into it expecting more suckage.
30 March , 2007 at 3:08 pm
I thought is was one of if not the best Bond movie, I like the character more and it is closer to the books, gritty like the Dalton films.
Far more believable for Craig to be the character than Roger Moore.
Looking forward to the next movie with Daniel, hopefully John Cleese and gang gets introduced. I agree the invisible car and Denise Richards was a bit much.
31 March , 2007 at 1:03 pm
Interesing that you compare Craig to Moore. My understanding is the Albert and Barbara Broccoli gave primary consideration to two actors before falling back onto Sean Connery: Cary Grant and Roger Moore. They opted not to go with Grant because he told them he would do only one film and they had high hopes of making a series. Moore, as I understand it, was contracted for a television series or some such thing and was unable to accept. Thus, Connery came into the roll.
I am an Alfred Hitchcock fan and whenever I see Grant in “North by Northwest” or “To Catch Thief”, I often think it would have been interesting to have seen him do a Bond film.
31 March , 2007 at 11:48 pm
If I was more of a fatuous internet dork I’d say something like ‘Craig was teh best Bond 3\/3r’. As it stands I must concur with the sentiments expressed thus far. Craig was a great choice to play the bond they chose to protray in this film. The tone of the film made it pretty obvious the filmmakers understood that they had to compete with the incredible success of Mr. Damon’s superspy/agent. The Parkour chase scene was at once typically bondish and over the top yet pretty damned hip and really well conceived. I’m up for the next one.
Truth be told however I did prefer Mr. Craig in ‘Layer Cake’ which was an emminently enjoyable addition to the quirky English crime film landscape.
3 April , 2007 at 11:55 am
Didn’t David Niven play Bond in the jokey original version of Casino Royale? I’d look it up, but I’m tired.
3 April , 2007 at 3:43 pm
He played Sir James Bond, the retired 007 in the unwatchable spoof version of Casino Royale.
4 April , 2007 at 5:58 am
hi i would like to exchange my link with you if you are intersted in link exchange than email me on:-
bagde.hotlines@gmail.com
my blog url is :-
http://hollywood-premier.blogspot.com/
7 April , 2007 at 2:26 am
Sorry, MattressPolice = Diesel. Yeah, the spoof was pretty bad as I recall. SinisterDan, you must come play in my caption contest.
13 April , 2007 at 2:03 am
I appreciated the fact that they actually did stuntwork and didn’t resort to cheating with CGI.