› ›

The DANIEL CRAIG Appreciation thread - Discuss His Life, His Career, His Bond Films

1…101102104106107…169

Comments

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    It is a small “art house” film. I had hoped the director would make editing changes after TIFF. But no.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,501
    This is all kind of a moot point. This was a smaller film done by a (correct me if I'm wrong), second-time filmmaker, who was making (I think), her first engllish-made film.

    She is a creative talent who won an Oscar.

    I heard DC contacted her and basically said: I'll be in your next film.

    She took him up on his word.

    The film has been less than glowing.

    But, at TIFF this year, there was Denzel in Roman J. Israel Esq. It was also not well received.

    I heard Denzel was even part of the team that re-edited the picture after TIFF-- and it was still a bomb.

    That's the industry folks. Sometimes a film just doesn't end up being what it wants to be.

    Roman j. Israel Esq is no reflection of Denzel's mighty talent, as Kings has no reflection on DC's talents either.

    Just as Shalako, Meteor, Zardoz and the Avengers has no bearings on how talented Mr. Connery was
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,087
    peter wrote: »
    This is all kind of a moot point. This was a smaller film done by a (correct me if I'm wrong), second-time filmmaker, who was making (I think), her first engllish-made film.

    She is a creative talent who won an Oscar.

    I heard DC contacted her and basically said: I'll be in your next film.

    She took him up on his word.

    The film has been less than glowing.

    But, at TIFF this year, there was Denzel in Roman J. Israel Esq. It was also not well received.

    I heard Denzel was even part of the team that re-edited the picture after TIFF-- and it was still a bomb.

    That's the industry folks. Sometimes a film just doesn't end up being what it wants to be.

    Roman j. Israel Esq is no reflection of Denzel's mighty talent, as Kings has no reflection on DC's talents either.

    Just as Shalako, Meteor, Zardoz and the Avengers has no bearings on how talented Mr. Connery was

    But Denzel and Connery have a plethora of good movies and have demonstrated their starpower many times. Yes, everyone has flops, but Connery and Denzel are still big names over the course of many decades. Craig has Bond, and a few notable well received films or decently profitable ventures outside of that. I wouldn't go around comparing him with either Sean or Denzel, personally.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,501
    My point was: that's the industry where even big names like King C and DW have flops.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    RDJ has nothing but flops outside of Iron Man . Not that he doing that much inbetween. And he is an icon. They all dont stand that well on their own two feet these days. The Rock being an exception right now.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,473
    Definitely wouldn't classify those Sherlock Holmes movies as bombs. They were box office successes for sure.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Both of the Sherlock Holmes films were critically and commercially successful. The first one was even nominated for countless awards, including Oscars.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited April 2018 Posts: 4,554
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    This is all kind of a moot point. This was a smaller film done by a (correct me if I'm wrong), second-time filmmaker, who was making (I think), her first engllish-made film.

    She is a creative talent who won an Oscar.

    I heard DC contacted her and basically said: I'll be in your next film.

    She took him up on his word.

    The film has been less than glowing.

    But, at TIFF this year, there was Denzel in Roman J. Israel Esq. It was also not well received.

    I heard Denzel was even part of the team that re-edited the picture after TIFF-- and it was still a bomb.

    That's the industry folks. Sometimes a film just doesn't end up being what it wants to be.

    Roman j. Israel Esq is no reflection of Denzel's mighty talent, as Kings has no reflection on DC's talents either.

    Just as Shalako, Meteor, Zardoz and the Avengers has no bearings on how talented Mr. Connery was

    But Denzel and Connery have a plethora of good movies and have demonstrated their starpower many times. Yes, everyone has flops, but Connery and Denzel are still big names over the course of many decades. Craig has Bond, and a few notable well received films or decently profitable ventures outside of that. I wouldn't go around comparing him with either Sean or Denzel, personally.

    Connery's star power other than Bond was mostly post-Bond. And 16 years after the fact. The Untouchables brought Connery back and after that, he became a bona fide A-lister. He wasn't for a long time until then.

    DC didn't make Kings looking for a huge BO success. This may come as a shock to some, but many actors take roles because they seen an opportunity to take on an interesting role or work with cast/director--not to make a lot of money. DC did Kings because of Erguven. If an actor does a small, independent, art-house film, there is huge upside with little downside. It is better to make a small piece of junk than a big budget piece of junk (see Matt Damon in The Great Wall...or, actually, don't see it. LOL)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited April 2018 Posts: 8,087
    TripAces wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    This is all kind of a moot point. This was a smaller film done by a (correct me if I'm wrong), second-time filmmaker, who was making (I think), her first engllish-made film.

    She is a creative talent who won an Oscar.

    I heard DC contacted her and basically said: I'll be in your next film.

    She took him up on his word.

    The film has been less than glowing.

    But, at TIFF this year, there was Denzel in Roman J. Israel Esq. It was also not well received.

    I heard Denzel was even part of the team that re-edited the picture after TIFF-- and it was still a bomb.

    That's the industry folks. Sometimes a film just doesn't end up being what it wants to be.

    Roman j. Israel Esq is no reflection of Denzel's mighty talent, as Kings has no reflection on DC's talents either.

    Just as Shalako, Meteor, Zardoz and the Avengers has no bearings on how talented Mr. Connery was

    But Denzel and Connery have a plethora of good movies and have demonstrated their starpower many times. Yes, everyone has flops, but Connery and Denzel are still big names over the course of many decades. Craig has Bond, and a few notable well received films or decently profitable ventures outside of that. I wouldn't go around comparing him with either Sean or Denzel, personally.

    Connery's star power other than Bond was mostly post-Bond. And 16 years after the fact. The Untouchables brought Connery back and after that, he became a bona fide A-lister. He wasn't for a long time until then.

    DC didn't make Kings looking for a huge BO success. This may come as a shock to some, but many actors take roles because they seen an opportunity to take on an interesting role or work with cast/director--not to make a lot of money. DC did Kings because of Erguven. If an actor does a small, independent, art-house film, there is huge upside with little downside. It is better to make a small piece of junk than a big budget piece of junk (see Matt Damon in The Great Wall...or, actually, don't see it. LOL)

    Why would someone want to make any size piece of junk?
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Definitely wouldn't classify those Sherlock Holmes movies as bombs. They were box office successes for sure.

    True, forgot about those
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    This is all kind of a moot point. This was a smaller film done by a (correct me if I'm wrong), second-time filmmaker, who was making (I think), her first engllish-made film.

    She is a creative talent who won an Oscar.

    I heard DC contacted her and basically said: I'll be in your next film.

    She took him up on his word.

    The film has been less than glowing.

    But, at TIFF this year, there was Denzel in Roman J. Israel Esq. It was also not well received.

    I heard Denzel was even part of the team that re-edited the picture after TIFF-- and it was still a bomb.

    That's the industry folks. Sometimes a film just doesn't end up being what it wants to be.

    Roman j. Israel Esq is no reflection of Denzel's mighty talent, as Kings has no reflection on DC's talents either.

    Just as Shalako, Meteor, Zardoz and the Avengers has no bearings on how talented Mr. Connery was

    But Denzel and Connery have a plethora of good movies and have demonstrated their starpower many times. Yes, everyone has flops, but Connery and Denzel are still big names over the course of many decades. Craig has Bond, and a few notable well received films or decently profitable ventures outside of that. I wouldn't go around comparing him with either Sean or Denzel, personally.

    Connery's star power other than Bond was mostly post-Bond. And 16 years after the fact. The Untouchables brought Connery back and after that, he became a bona fide A-lister. He wasn't for a long time until then.

    DC didn't make Kings looking for a huge BO success. This may come as a shock to some, but many actors take roles because they seen an opportunity to take on an interesting role or work with cast/director--not to make a lot of money. DC did Kings because of Erguven. If an actor does a small, independent, art-house film, there is huge upside with little downside. It is better to make a small piece of junk than a big budget piece of junk (see Matt Damon in The Great Wall...or, actually, don't see it. LOL)

    Why would someone want to make any size piece of junk?

    I don’t think anyone goes into it THINKING it is going to be so. But a low profile artsy film can take risks. A lot of times they don’t pan out and so be it; it will disappear. But high profile films become highly publicized wrecks.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited May 2018 Posts: 15,423
    Post-Bond, I'd actually like Craig in a different franchise which I would gather would be more up to his worldview and forte than Bond is.

    Ten years ago, there were desires expressed by Christopher Nolan to write, co-produce and direct a film adaptation of the 1967-68 one-season ITC series called The Prisoner. The thing is, as much as I don't want Nolan for Bond (and I never will), he's the most eligible director in this day and age to properly adapt that miniseries to a film as it is something akin to the subjects he often works closely to.

    There are many similarities in terms of acting performances and on-screen traits between Daniel Craig and Patrick McGoohan, so I think Craig would make a terrific Number Six. Heck, if they play it as ambiguous about Number Six's identity as it was in the TV series, it would even spawn more publicity about it, leading to the people assuming Number Six (an unnamed spy who resigned from his job, then captured and kidnapped to an identified location) would be none other than Bond himself (theory people, that is) the way previously this was thought of with McGoohan's character when people thought it was John Drake (another spy character he played in another series), which was never confirmed nor denied.

    I could definitely see Craig starring as the title character in Christopher Nolan's The Prisoner. It's something that should happen. A psychological thriller with no straightforward story. Nolan is the one to deliver that sort of thing.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Post-Bond, I'd actually like Craig in a different franchise which I would gather would be more up to his worldview and forte than Bond is.

    Ten years ago, there were desires expressed by Christopher Nolan to write, co-produce and direct a film adaptation of the 1967-68 one-season ITC series called The Prisoner. The thing is, as much as I don't want Nolan for Bond (and I never will), he's the most eligible director in this day and age to properly adapt that miniseries to a film as it is something akin to the subjects he often works closely to.

    There are many similarities in terms of acting performances and on-screen traits between Daniel Craig and Patrick McGoohan, so I think Craig would make a terrific Number Six. Heck, if they play it as ambiguous about Number Six's identity as it was in the TV series, it would even spawn more publicity about it, leading to the people assuming Number Six (an unnamed spy who resigned from his job, then captured and kidnapped to an identified location) would be none other than Bond himself (theory people, that is) the way previously this was thought of with McGoohan's character when people thought it was John Drake (another spy character he played in another series), which was never confirmed nor denied.

    I could definitely see Craig starring as the title character in Christopher Nolan's The Prisoner. It's something that should happen. A psychological thriller with no straightforward story. Nolan is the one to deliver that sort of thing.

    Craig and Nolan would be quite an interesting team up.
    I am not familiar with The Prisoner but it sounds interesting in concept.
    Nolan is one of my favorite Directors right now (but i am also not sure about him directing Bond) and since they won't be doing a Bond movie together, this would be a nice idea.
  • noSolaceleftnoSolaceleft
    Posts: 1,162
    Wasn’t there a remake of number six just a couple of years ago?
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Wasn’t there a remake of number six just a couple of years ago?

    A TV series which was bloody awful and never got a 2nd series.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited May 2018 Posts: 15,423
    noSolaceleft wrote: »
    Wasn’t there a remake of number six just a couple of years ago?
    Yes. The AMC remake released in 2009 is best avoided at all costs!

    Like Barry stated, it's bloody awful. In fact, I'll take it up further: It's an abomination.
    00Agent wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Post-Bond, I'd actually like Craig in a different franchise which I would gather would be more up to his worldview and forte than Bond is.

    Ten years ago, there were desires expressed by Christopher Nolan to write, co-produce and direct a film adaptation of the 1967-68 one-season ITC series called The Prisoner. The thing is, as much as I don't want Nolan for Bond (and I never will), he's the most eligible director in this day and age to properly adapt that miniseries to a film as it is something akin to the subjects he often works closely to.

    There are many similarities in terms of acting performances and on-screen traits between Daniel Craig and Patrick McGoohan, so I think Craig would make a terrific Number Six. Heck, if they play it as ambiguous about Number Six's identity as it was in the TV series, it would even spawn more publicity about it, leading to the people assuming Number Six (an unnamed spy who resigned from his job, then captured and kidnapped to an identified location) would be none other than Bond himself (theory people, that is) the way previously this was thought of with McGoohan's character when people thought it was John Drake (another spy character he played in another series), which was never confirmed nor denied.

    I could definitely see Craig starring as the title character in Christopher Nolan's The Prisoner. It's something that should happen. A psychological thriller with no straightforward story. Nolan is the one to deliver that sort of thing.
    Craig and Nolan would be quite an interesting team up.
    I am not familiar with The Prisoner but it sounds interesting in concept.
    Nolan is one of my favorite Directors right now (but i am also not sure about him directing Bond) and since they won't be doing a Bond movie together, this would be a nice idea.
    Glad you like it, my friend. :D
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited May 2018 Posts: 4,554
    New pic from two days ago: What's with all the keys???

    rachel-weisz-daniel-craig-nyc-sighting-06.jpg
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    He's the gatekeeper of the 00-personnel. ;)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,501
    ... and is he flying low?... Naughty-naughty, Mr. Bond....
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    peter wrote: »
    ... and is he flying low?... Naughty-naughty, Mr. Bond....

    I caught that too LOL
  • JWPepperJWPepper You sit on it, but you can't take it with you.
    Posts: 512
    TripAces wrote: »
    New pic from two days ago: What's with all the keys???

    rachel-weisz-daniel-craig-nyc-sighting-06.jpg

    Maybe he's holding the Bond 25 script.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    DC's name comes up in the new Netflix comedy Ibiza...
    The film's female characters identify different types of breasts women have. Bo peeps, Bilbo Baggins, honeydews...and one pair is known as "Daniel Craigs." LOL Not sure what this is supposed to mean.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,020
    The sincerest form of flattery, I hope, @TripAces. But I have no idea.
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,108
    Sticking out sideways like his ears?
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Haha...maybe
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,554
    Agent_99 wrote: »
    Sticking out sideways like his ears?

    LOL...I was thinking more along the lines of "little secret agents." But then why not call them "James Bonds?" The DC reference really was truly bizarre, and I spit up my mouthful of cereal when I heard it.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    my guess would be, it's related to his beach scene in CR :)
    But what exactly that means in relation to female breasts, everyone can make up his own mind about that lol
  • ThrasosThrasos
    Posts: 1,469
    He looks pretty good in that photo above. If he wanted to look even better in Bond 25, I'd recommend a deeper tan or using a bronzer, and maybe darkening the hair color some.
  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    Posts: 4,400
    Daniel Craig should really fire his agent.

    Damian Lewis just got cast as Steve McQueen in Tarantino's latest film, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
    https://deadline.com/2018/06/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-damian-lewis-luke-perry-dakota-fanning-cast-1202405007/

    latest?cb=20150201132538
    image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fewedit.files.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F01%2Flewismcqueen_l.jpg%3Fw%3D320&w=700&q=85

    Surely, Craig should have got the offer? I'm shocked.

  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Maybe he turned it down. Because WHEN would he do it?

    But this Damian is rather unattractive and really weird looking - to me anyway. What were they thinking?
Sign In or Register to comment.