A Blond Bond?

♠
“My god, don't the producers have any brains? Craig is not Bond material. Bond must be tall, dark and handsome. Or at least two of the three, and he isn't even one!”

-- A James Bond fan

In "Bond Franchise Is Shaken and Stirred," Sharon Waxman reports that the Bond people have taken a striking new turn in picking Daniel Craig to replace Pierce Brosnan. Mr. Craig does not seem to be an obvious choice:

“The new James Bond is blond. Rough trade, with a pale, flattened face and large, fleshy ears. Accent: well, it ain't Oxbridge.”

Although it is denied, it looks like Pierce Brosnan may have lost the role when he started bargaining hard for a much greater take, wanting a cool $40,000,000. Barbara Broccoli and company have since decided that it may be a good idea to try a new direction with the franchise. Last week, Brosnan publicly stated that he was still up for the Bond role. Heh, win some, lose some!

They say that they want to go darker and put more importance on character development over spy-gadgetry. That would be welcome news to Monk, who always regretted the tendency to make 007 an all-out comedy. He thought they had gotten back on the right direction with Timothy Dalton, who arguably gave us a more adult James Bond with a grittier story background. Monk has not even bothered to watch the last two Bond pictures on cable, at least not beyond catching a glimpse of the comic book hilarity and thus confirming the pointlessness of watching the movie in its entirety.

Speaking of the Criag choice, Ms. Amy Pascal, chief executive of the Sony motion picture group, said, "I think that he has a kind of intensity, and a sexuality, and a roguishness... And he seems like he could be a spy."

He looks like he could be a spy? I am not sure what that means, but one is looking forward to seeing what they do with this spy extraordinaire licensed to kill.

xXx

A Blond Bond?

♠
“My god, don't the producers have any brains? Craig is not Bond material. Bond must be tall, dark and handsome. Or at least two of the three, and he isn't even one!”

-- A James Bond fan

In "Bond Franchise Is Shaken and Stirred," Sharon Waxman reports that the Bond people have taken a striking new turn in picking Daniel Craig to replace Pierce Brosnan. Mr. Craig does not seem to be an obvious choice:

“The new James Bond is blond. Rough trade, with a pale, flattened face and large, fleshy ears. Accent: well, it ain't Oxbridge.”

Although it is denied, it looks like Pierce Brosnan may have lost the role when he started bargaining hard for a much greater take, wanting a cool $40,000,000. Barbara Broccoli and company have since decided that it may be a good idea to try a new direction with the franchise. Last week, Brosnan publicly stated that he was still up for the Bond role. Heh, win some, lose some!

They say that they want to go darker and put more importance on character development over spy-gadgetry. That would be welcome news to Monk, who always regretted the tendency to make 007 an all-out comedy. He thought they had gotten back on the right direction with Timothy Dalton, who arguably gave us a more adult James Bond with a grittier story background. Monk has not even bothered to watch the last two Bond pictures on cable, at least not beyond catching a glimpse of the comic book hilarity and thus confirming the pointlessness of watching the movie in its entirety.

Speaking of the Criag choice, Ms. Amy Pascal, chief executive of the Sony motion picture group, said, "I think that he has a kind of intensity, and a sexuality, and a roguishness... And he seems like he could be a spy."

He looks like he could be a spy? I am not sure what that means, but one is looking forward to seeing what they do with this spy extraordinaire licensed to kill.

xXx