ROTTEN TOMATOES: The New 007 Will (Finally) Be Announced ... Tomorrow

The New 007 Will (Finally) Be Announced ... Tomorrow

by Scott Weinberg | October 13, 2005

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Sony Pictures will hold a press conference on 10/14 to announce the name of the actor who'll be stepping into the role of James Bond. Early buzz indicates that it will be Daniel Craig ("Layer Cake"), but we won't know for certain until Friday afternoon.

"Sony Pictures Entertainment, the studio backing new Bond film "Casino Royale," said Wednesday that the actor who will portray the suave secret agent with a license to kill would be named at a news conference in London on October 14. No further details were disclosed, and the mystery remains over who will star in the film franchise that has grossed nearly $4 billion at global box offices since the first Bond flick, "Dr. No," hit the silver screen in 1962."

The previous Bonds were Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan.

Related Items

Celeb:	Daniel Craig
	Pierce Brosnan
	Sean Connery
	Timothy Dalton
	George Lazenby
	Roger Moore
Movie:	Dr. No
	The James Bond Collection - Special Edition 007 DVD 7-Pack: Volume 1
	Layer Cake

(1-17 of 17 posts) | Reply

slqrick writes:
on Oct 13 2005 06:54 AM

clive owen, has the bond look and the grit that the series could use.

(Reply to this)

Fangmeier69 writes:
on Oct 13 2005 08:14 AM

[b]Another slow news day?[/b]
They dusted off the Daniel Craig report from last summer and put it out again. He's still too creepy looking to be Bond. Wake me when this merry-go-round is over.

(Reply to this)

mizzoucritic writes:
on Oct 13 2005 08:37 AM

[b]Craig is the man[/b]
Daniel Craig is not creepy looking. Anyway, he was awesome in Layer Cake and he will give the role a more mature feel. Pierce Bronsnan wasn't awful, just boring at times. If Craig gets the role, then we have reason to be excited. If it's anyone else (like those young kiddos they've been considering)...we might as well skip it.

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Oct 13 2005 11:11 AM

[b]I Feel Sorry for Daniel Craig.[/b]
Quentin Tarantino really, really, wanted this movie but the powers that be rejected him. Tarantino could have brought 007 into the 21st century and made him interesting again. So whoever becomes the new Bond is irrelevant now.

(Reply to this)

UweBoll writes:
on Oct 13 2005 11:41 AM

Daniel Craig is a perfect choice, attractive, masculine, with a sligthly threatening presence, not sure how he is going to handle those witty one liners though.

They should really work on the scripts though, all the films with Pierce Brosnan were a bit dull, and lacked the old films charms. It's going to take more than a new actor to make those films worth watching again, it needs a new twist.

(Reply to this)

alephnull writes:
on Oct 13 2005 11:50 AM

[b]A different choice[/b]
I would like to see Jason Statham as bond. He deserves a much better franchiese then "The Transporter".

(Reply to this)

jsmccune writes:
on Oct 13 2005 11:56 AM

Orlando Bloom! LOL -- scraggly, rat-eyed SOB.... I agree w/ Clive Owen (Stratham would make a good one, but he doesn't fit the picture -- then again, neither does DC).

(Reply to this)

Rokk101 writes:
on Oct 13 2005 12:04 PM

[b]Craig a good villain choice...but 007???[/b]
I can see Daniel Craig being a great Bond villain for a flick or two, but 007? Maybe he will prove me wrong if he turns out to be the actual choice. Personally, I had been hoping for Clive Owen...I think he has the look, the voice, and the chops to do a great job.
As far as Jason Statham...I don't know if the world is ready for a bald Bond...and to be honest, playing Bond is more about the look (suave smartass pretty boy) than the martial arts action (the latter of which Statham has in spades however!)

(Reply to this)

lovelykeira writes:
on Oct 13 2005 12:56 PM

I like Craig but I was kinda hoping that Dougray Scott would be the new Bond.

(Reply to this)

InfinityCorp writes:
on Oct 13 2005 01:33 PM

Okay, Clive Owen was never going to happen. Being the next 007 means 3-4 film contract, and all sorts of fun stipulations. Like, no tux in any other films, action films on approval, ect... On top of that the producers are still very tight with the coins...

Daniel Craig is the best choice. Other then letting Brosnan do a fifth film. As stated above, Tarantino (Along with Brosnan they are pals) pushed for a gritty, back-to-basics Bond film. Along the lines of "Casino Royale" (see also, "Thunderball"). Not supprisingly months later the concept for "Casino Royale" was echoed by the producers as the 21st Bond film. Hmmm...

Anyway, I saw "Layer Cake" and some of Craig's early stuff from the BBC. He is an excellent actor, he has pretty good range, and to be honest out of the names I heard as a possible "new" Bond; Daniel Craig was the best option. But...

Touching on how his predecesor, Pierce Brosnan, who in my own opinion was the essence of 007, was ousted from a fifth film. I see thin ice for this production. Lets be honest, after Sean Connery and a somewhat frumpy but still enjoyable Roger Moore nobody came close. Lazenby was stiff and felt just a touch plain for me. Dalton was edgy and gritty sure, but he wasn't smooth and sophisticated. Brosnan was the perfect man for the job. Without question.

Is Daniel Craig the perfect man for the job? No. But, he is the best that they have got to choose from. Craig feels like 005 to me. Not 007.

If SONY pushed hard enough they would have Brosnan back for a fifth with Tarantino directing. The stuff dreams are made of...

(Reply to this)

Legalos245 writes:
on Oct 13 2005 02:54 PM

[b]Well[/b]
It's Daniel Craig people, it was announced yesterday on a TV show here in the U.S.

Also the director is the guy who did Goldeneye.

(Reply to this)

OutToLunch25 writes:
on Oct 13 2005 02:59 PM

[b]They really goofed[/b]
The Bond producers should've followed the example set by the people who made Batman Begins. The folks behind that movie listened to the fans, the majority of whom wanted to see Christian Bale as The Caped Crusader. And for the first time, Batman fans were happy cause they finally got the movie and the Batman they've been asking for. If you go to any of the online polls, Daniel Craig was ranked near the bottom as a potential Bond and yet the Bond producers went ahead and picked him anyway. Are they just that out of touch with the fans or are they just that cheap? Brosnan was ousted cause he was too expensive as are Hugh Jackman, Clive Owen, Jude Law, Orlando Bloom, and Ewan McGregor. And it's doubtful that Owen, Law, Bloom or McGregor would want to commit to 3 or 4 films. So Craig gets the job, but for all the wrong reasons. Too bad. The Brosnan movies weren't great, but he was always one of the best things about them. Instead of trying to reinvent the series by casting a new Bond, what they need to do is get better writers and better directors. If you're going to recast, then do something bold that'll really shake things up and get people talking. Colin Salmon would've made an interesting choice as Bond. Sure, some people would complain that Bond isn't black, but after 20 movies, shouldn't they try something different? Casting a blond Bond isn't a radical change. And casting an actor who doesn't have a lot of positive buzz like Craig is just incredibly stupid. The Bond producers may not want to admit it, but people are so used to seeing Brosnan as Bond, that it'll be tough to see an unpopular choice come in and take over the role. The fans wanted Brosnan as Bond since the 80s and that's why they welcomed his casting in Goldeneye. But this guy? How can we get excited about a Bond movie when the 9th or 10th choice got the role?

(Reply to this)

nogard64 writes:
on Oct 13 2005 09:14 PM

I want Craig David, hes got the voice and talent to be Bond.

(Reply to this)

MoeRL writes:
on Oct 13 2005 09:57 PM

[b]Hmm..[/b]
Seeing as I loved Craig in Layer Cake, I think this might turn out to be sweet. Only time wiill tell... but I didn't even know Tarantino could have directed this one! And with Brosnan? Oh boy... that's one killer movie that never came to be :(

(Reply to this)

MC. writes:
on Oct 14 2005 03:43 AM

I can't believe they wouldn't give bronsnan one more shot and market it as his last one. It would make a huge amount of money.

Another studio should hire bronsnan for a bond like role...big budget and lots of action. Huge box office intenationally.

(Reply to this)

puablo writes:
on Oct 14 2005 05:30 AM

[b]Great Choice[/b]
I agree with the earlier post that they should have kept Brosnan on a little longer, I have to admit he has made the oft-asked "who was the best Bond?" question very difficult now, as he was great. But I am VERY GLAD they picked Daniel Craig. Why? Because the list that has been tossed around for months/years has been crap. Orlando Bloom? You gotta be kidding me. The only person who I had wanted to be Bond, ever since I saw Croupier, was Clive Owen. Shame he turned it down. But I'm quite pleased that we have the blond Bond.

(Reply to this)

It. writes:
on Oct 14 2005 05:55 PM

He is blond; it is screw

(Reply to this)