« Home | Misconceptions about Valentine's Day » | Brokeback Mountain Music Video » | Reasons to Love Wikipedia » | A Sob Story » | A secret obsession » | Singapore Trip 04 » | Singapore Trip 03 » | Singapore Trip 02 » | Singapore Trip 01 » | Short Hiatus »

To Bond or not to Bond

Seems there's a huge hooha, mostly from die hard Bond fans that Daniel Criag is not Bond. They even went as far as to set up a website against the new Bond called http://www.craignotbond.com/

I looked the site over and as far as I can see the main and only reason they don't like Daniel is because of his looks. They called him rough, ugly, short. OK, I'll be quite frank, I watch the Bond films because they are entertaining, but on the whole I'm not really a Bond fan.

What do I think? Criag might be Blond which is unusual for Bond but ever heard of hair dye? They call him short. Well at 6 feet, he's not short. Not tall perhaps but not short. Besides most of the actresses are about 5' 6" so he'll still be taller than them. His face might be a little rough but makeup and fewer closeups can solve that. Besides he is significantly more build than Pierce Bronsnan was.
Over all I agree that Hugh Jackman or Clive Owen would have been a much better choice but I'm also glad Hugh was not picked. People picked to be Bond are tied the franchise and allowed to do only projects that don't interfere with the franchise. I'd rather see Hugh in a slew of other films such as X3, Wolferine and The Prestige to name a few.

Eventually I don't think any noise from fans will help at this point. Contract have been signed and filming is already underway. To change Bonds at this stage would be a HUGE money sink. And honestly? I don't mind Criag that much. After all we survived Timothy Dalton as Bond and in my books that was a worse fiasco that this one.

Links to this post

Create a Link

Blogs I Frequent