Comments on: Quentin Tarantino: ‘Daniel Craig Shouldn’t Be James Bond’

By: Zorro

Zorro — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:46:20 +0000

Pierce brosnan is the best bond ever.He has got the style in himself, he suits as James bond. I am a hardcore fan of Pierce Brosnan. He has got sharp features for a role of a bond. His mannerism and style attracts lot of people.He has got fast reflexes during the film shoot for Bond role and he looks real as Bond. Any one who dreams of a James Bond after reading the Ian flemings novel then the person who suits the features and description in the novel is Pierce, because of his style and elegant looks, great eyes. Irish guy suits the role ever. We will never get him to see as Bond again

By: california public relations

california public relations — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:53:44 +0000

I think with Daniel Craig, James Bond has lost his finesse.

By: Rogothy Bronnery

Rogothy Bronnery — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 02:46:20 +0000

I’d like to see Tarantino do an unofficial Casino Royale with Brosnan. If it were possible. Anyways get Craig out the role and find someone with more wit and charisma. Fire the current writers. They Suck. Get John Glenn back!

By: hd tv online

hd tv online — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 02:30:17 +0000

I’d love to see what Tarantino could do with the Bond character, but he’d probably be better off scratch-building his own spy rather than trying to reinvent this one.

By: surety bond company

surety bond company — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 03:02:18 +0000

that’s something to look forward to- tarantino’s version james bond.

By: world cup 2010 betting odds

world cup 2010 betting odds — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 01:14:51 +0000

Thanks for the suggestions and references information’s.

By: daleonsouth

daleonsouth — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 14:09:55 +0000

Daniel Craig, in my opinion, was the best Bond since Connery… although Moore’s first outing was great.

By: CarolPerdue

CarolPerdue — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 23:12:32 +0000

OMG I loved Daniel

By: trudy

trudy — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:06:32 +0000

Tarantino has no soul.

By: Richard Kiel as Jaws

Richard Kiel as Jaws — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:19:56 +0000

Quentin, he’s your father.You look just like him.A chip off the old block(head).JAWS IS YOUR DEHDDY!

By: San Quentin Tarantulatino

San Quentin Tarantulatino — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:58:38 +0000

Sheesh, is this bloke homely, oh, what is this ?!

By: rankin

rankin — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:46:44 +0000

adrian paul would have been a good james bond several years ago!

By: Manual Directory Submission Services

Manual Directory Submission Services — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 03:39:53 +0000

thanks for this blog.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:43:37 +0000

Love this smart commentary! I admit that I thought Daniel Craig was a weak choice as 007 from Day 1 but never imagined there would be such a huge groundswell of dissatisfaction with both him and the people who produce Bond more than two years after Casino Royale. Shouldn’t all the controversy have died down by now if he really was a good choice? I’ll also have to read more into what some of you are saying about Barbara Broccoli because on reflection it does indeed seem like James Bond has been blunted by the feminist movement. The character is dull as dishwater these days.

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 09:51:42 +0000

Daniel Craig’s tenure will be known as the STOP! OR MY M. WILL SHOOT years of the James Bond franchise, with Judi Dench standing in for Estelle Getty. Audience take her seriously now, but future generations will be laughing their heads off at the absurdity of her scenes.

Tarantino’s version sounds like a welcome change from all the baggage Eon Productions carries around and installs into every Bond film. Their version is like an anti-James Bond movie. Tarantino’s at least would have accepted the original Bond concept and the genre and put that through its paces.

By: Richard

Richard — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 09:45:30 +0000

I’m not a fan of Tarantino’s films (although JACKIE BROWN had merit) but I would rather have seen his version of CASINO ROYALE than the one we ended up with. I think Tarantino would have deferred more to Fleming and the early 1960s Bond films than to his own twisted muse. The novel offered edgy dramatic and character possibilities that the official film ignored and which I think Tarantino would have explored with Brosnan in the role.

CASINO ROYALE deconstructed the character of James Bond into a politically correct moron; he’s as dumb as Family Guy. It is aided and abetted by a clueless actor in Daniel Craig. The new Bond seemed absolutely clueless as he is followed around by a nagging geriatric den mother in M and a male-bashing girl friend in Vesper who teach him responsibility and sensitivity. What a load of crap. Then the sequel, QUANTUM OF SOLACE was like going to a funeral with Attention Deficit Disorder. I don’t think James Bond will ever be rescued from the quagmire the daughter and son of Cubby Broccoli have buried him in.

The producers are the problem here. What’s needed is an entirely different approach by an entirely different group of people who would do an entirely different thing. For that reason alone I would have welcomed Pierce Brosnan’s collaboration with Tarantino. Brosnan is a better choice than Craig and a fine actor who earned the right to do Casino Royale.

What a shame we’ll never see a faithful adaptation of Ian Fleming’s classic first Bond novel.

By: Riker

Riker — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 21:24:45 +0000

None of us can do anything about that, sadly. It’s all in the hands of Barbara Broccoli these days, a fat and ugly feminist who is doing her best to destroy James Bond as a male icon. That’s why she chose a pussy actor like Craig to play 007, put him in subservience to a female M, limited his mysogonistic sexual conquests of women, and wildly amped up his appeal to gay guys. Be proud to count yourself in that group, David, you nerdy little fanboy.

By: David

David — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:25:08 +0000

He can shut his big fat Gob Daniel Craig is Bond and he cant do nothing about that.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:14:07 +0000

Hmmm, although it’s not even the point of the story it seems to me that Pierce Brosnan has been nothing but a gentleman since he was dumped by EON. So was Roger Moore about his time as 007. In fact, being a gentleman is quite a Bond thing to do. What Quentin and others here are basically complaining about is that Craig doesn’t exude any natural Bond qualities of his own. Have you ever seen him being interviewed? He comes off as either a goody boy or dull prick. Go Youtube his interview on the Jimmy Kimmel show. I swear Daniel Craig acts and looks more like Major Frank Burns from MASH than super spy James Bond in that.

By: Anti Pierce Brosnan

Anti Pierce Brosnan — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:41:23 +0000

I don’t mean Joe & few poeple. Sorry about few of you.

By: Anti Pierce Brosnan

Anti Pierce Brosnan — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:39:52 +0000

Some of You in this Blog are idiots. But I mean Joe & few people. I was glad Timothy Dalton took over from Roger Moore in 1987 as 007 when Pierce Brosnan tried to get in but his Remington Steele role was still on. If Bond Franchise didn’t hold from 1989 to 6 years Dalton would had continued the role as 007. Timothy Dalton could gone from 1987 to 1995 then after his 50th Birthday he would had retired from the role.Then Brosnan would had not been Bond at all. Then would had came either Daniel Craig,Hugh Jackman or Clive Owens. I wish it was that way. Pierce Brosnan today has cause lot of troble for Bond. If any Brosnan fan tried to back fire I be back to give to you all.

By: Sir SeanV

Sir SeanV — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:19:56 +0000

The problem is, change the Bond actor every now and again, and you immediately have attention, because one of the most talked about casting announcements of the world when it happens is, who is the new James Bond or the next James Bond. I think the way the producers handled Brosnan’s departure, was to kinda blame him for their lack of creative focus on his Bond script. If you look at Die Another Day, the first half is acceptable, the North Korea scenes gritty and dark, then later on, you get Halle Berry with duff lines and a invisable car, but then you got the great Rosumund Pike as Frost who was more then enough to be the main woman, but they insisted on keep adding more, at the expense of Brosnan’s Bond. That’s their fault, and I don’t think they publically will admit their sillyness, they’ll just change the Bond actor, and steal ideas from Tarantino, it’s easy and quick to do isn’t it.

By: Sir SeanV

Sir SeanV — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:09:02 +0000

I personally would of liked to have seen Tarantino and Brosnan worked together on a Bond film. Brosnan had grew into the Bond role very well, his only problem was the producers just were too scared to not write a good story and focus on character, you can see Casino Royale was recieved well, because it was hard to not do it badly, given the strength of the story, add a new Bond, people will talk, but a film later, Quantum of Solace shows, how out of practice the Bond producers are, maybe they just need to take a break and let someone else do it, fresh talent, they are too in control with no one else offering creative input. Tarantino effectively gave them the idea to do Casino Royale, because the producers are so out of touch with what people want. Brosnan deserved better teatment, most of the public and fans should know, he was better then what he was given. Craig was given not much in Quantum of Solace, there’s too much inconsistency with the Bond producers, like throwing darts at a board, hoping to hit the bullseye, sometimes they do, sometimes they miss. I wish someone else was in charge for James Bond.

By: Sir SeanV

Sir SeanV — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:01:49 +0000

This is kinda old news, Tarantino said all this when the Pierce Brosnan exiting the fanchise stories came back back in fall 2004/2005

By: Jamal

Jamal — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 05:09:17 +0000

VVA can’t read apparently. The article cleary quotes Quentin saying “Actually if I had done the film, I wouldn’t have done it with Daniel Craig, I would have done it with Pierce Brosnan.” It’s likey he said this after Casino Royale premiered and at a minimum after Brosnan had already been dumped. My hunch is that it was the former and Quentin was unhappy with Craig’s version of Bond. Here in Chenai as in the rest of India I must say that since the horridly bad Quantum of Solace we’ve largely become tired of Daniel Craig as 007. Seems the “empire” isn’t what it once was… a diminutive Bond perfect for a diminutive Britain these days (and by that I mean not just in criket teams only, of course, lol).

By: Robin

Robin — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:20:57 +0000

Excellent.

By: vva

vva — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:44:21 +0000

I love the assumptions people are making of what Tarantino said. He NEVER said he DIDN’T like Craig in the part. He was approached BEFORE it was established as a reboot. So it was going to be a follow up to the Brosnan era of films after Die Another Day.. so it was of course going to star Brosnan in his version at that point.

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:53:30 +0000

Who cares what Quentin thinks? The only reason he’s kissing narrow-shouldered Brosnan’s ass is because Pierce wanted Tarantino to direct him in a Bond flick.

By: Joe Lovestick

Joe Lovestick — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:29:46 +0000

Well Quentin Tarantino is a Jerk. If Bond Producers knew that he would had been ban from directing any Bond movie. Casino Royale was the begin of Bond spy careera. You can’t put James Bond back in his first mission. Well I glad they recast Bond Daniel Craig did well. Martin Campell made a good comeback. Since he directed Brosnan in GoldenEye. He said Brosnan wouldn’t image Brosnan in Casino Royale & Daniel Craig in Goldeneye. Well I agree with him. The only true Bond I know is Sean Connery. Quantin Tarantino is a idoit & he no way of his to at the Bond producers.

By: Delfloria

Delfloria — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:47:46 +0000

QT should try his hand at doing “The Man from UNCLE” again. (as long as he does not want to star as IK).