While I was trying to find the poster for the new James Bond film Casino Royale, I stumbled across a website - craignotbond.com. This website claims that Daniel Craig is not suited for the role of James Bond, due to his pockmarked complexion, his utter lack of suaveness, and (of course) his blond locks. In fact, he just got the role after three better actors (Pierce Brosnan, Hugh Jackman and Clive Owen) turned down the role due to the small salary.

As I perused through the site - which features major polls taken regarding the public’s opinion about Daniel Craig as the new Bond, a photo similarity page that compares Craig to some other more-fitting actors, etc. - I was ecstatic - a site that totally agreed with me!

When I first heard that Daniel Craig was going to be the new Bond, I was surprised (to put it mildly). He doesn’t seem to fit the role at all, and is a very poor runner-up to the success the series has had while Pierce Brosnan was Agent 007. In fact, Brosnan brought a huge resurgence of interest to the Bond films, and if it hadn’t been for him, they might have stopped - since people are still trying to get over the fiasco that was Timothy Dalton.

But now the filmmakers have thrust us another sour apple with Daniel Craig. What could they have been thinking? I can see going with a younger Bond, as Casino Royale takes place at the beginning of Bond’s career. But someone who doesn’t fit audience expectations? That’s like putting a cardboard cut-out of a Dinosaur as the main threat in the inevitable Jurassic Park 4. Nobody is going to buy this guy - will they?

Apparently, craignotbond.com and myself aren’t the only ones who feel this way - according to some of the polls on the site (from such big names as USAToday.com, CNN.com, etc.), the general public doesn’t like the idea either.

So why did they do it? After Pierce, they might have been feeling a little indestructible, and falsely assumed they could make anyone work in the role, since it’s the story that people are going to see. Wrong. James Bond is an icon in the movie industry, and he shouldn’t be degraded this way.

Okay, maybe they were just being cheap. Why pay big bucks when you’ll have success paying the small cash. Sorry, but Hollywood hitmakers don’t work that way. The reason Pierce Brosnan, Clive Owen and Hugh Jackman are asking for more is simple: they put people in theater seats. Does Craig? Nope - otherwise he would be asking more too.

Unless we are all shockingly surprised by Casino Royale, we may be witnessing the self-destruction of the future of the Bond films this November.

The only option to bring the series back from the brink if Casino Royale tanks? The filmmmakers will have to swallow their pride, get down on their hands and knees, and beg Pierce to come back, no matter what the cost. Only then would Bond recover from such a devastating mistake as Daniel Craig is likely to be.

However, despite this (and an apparent boycott from diehard fans), I probably will go check out Casino Royale. But if it stinks, remember - I hold a grudge. After all, if I haven’t completely forgiven Eddie Murphy for Beverly Hills Cop III yet, why would I forgive and forget this so easily?

UPDATE: Checking the link to craignotbond.com, I found this link no longer exists as of January, 2007!

 
Tags: , ,

You May Also Enjoy: