1. Well put, Erik! Give Daniel a chance, bring on Casino Royale!

By the way, over at CBn we have good reason to believe that there is not a 'group of lifelong Bond fans' behind this, but one single jerk who has annoyed us over at our boards several times before. I can't believe how much attention this stupid website is getting. "There's no news like bad news" - so true! - Tim Roth, CommanderBond.net

Posted at 10:58AM on Feb 22nd 2006 by Tim 0 stars

2. Come on!
I think Craig is going to be really good as Bond. His face is just right, you can see he's dangerous and probably a bit whacked in the head like the "real" Bond from the books. Casino is supposed to be a return to the Bond basics after all is it not?

Posted at 11:29AM on Feb 22nd 2006 by nodave9000 0 stars

3. The best thing about the site is that it makes virtually no mention of the name "Ian Fleming" and the fact that Daniel Craig is a darned fine match for Fleming's version of Bond, particularly in the book of "Casino Royale." No, he's not as perfectly suited as Clive Owen, but that ship has sailed. Alas.

Posted at 12:14PM on Feb 22nd 2006 by Dan 2 stars

4. I think Daniel Craig is a beast of an actor. Totally loved him in Layer Cake and Munich. He's got a suave, cool underlying roughness about him that reminds me of Paul Newman. He's going to surprise many people.

As for Brosnan, his Bond movies were utter crap. Totally brainless sh!t. Brosnan was fantastic in The Matador and Tailor of Panama though.

Posted at 12:22PM on Feb 22nd 2006 by bgdc 7 stars

5. I plan on boycotting Casino Royale. Craig is not Bond! The Joke was making Craig Bond. Brosnan should of done one more at least.

Posted at 12:38PM on Feb 22nd 2006 by Susan 0 stars

6. First of all, the petition has well over 1300 names on it! Might want to check your facts first. Cinematical has always hated Pierce Brosnan.
Second, we have been planning this for months and will not give up because of some comments from a misguided person(s) such as yourself Tim.
Don't ever be surprised what the actions of people who really care can do....further, the fans should have been listened too. Having differences of opinions are one thing,but name calling and misconstrued statements left here only show lack of intelligence as well as lack of character.
Kitn

Posted at 2:19PM on Feb 22nd 2006 by Kitn 0 stars

7. I'm not going to give Craig any chance, and I'll boycott Casino Royale and all the following Bond movies. Pierce deserved Casino Royale for all the job he made in his Bond movies and for the job he made also for Casino Royale even before beginning to film. He was promised a 5th Bond, he worked for that and then they changed their mind? It's not fair. And they haven't said the reasons, either.
He has been the best Bond so far and he's the Bond Cubby has been wanted for so many years.

Posted at 3:11PM on Feb 22nd 2006 by Barbara 0 stars

8. Where were these crybabies when the monumentally insipid "Die Another Day" was released?

Posted at 5:33PM on Feb 22nd 2006 by Scott Weinberg 18 stars

9. The whole boycott idea is a farce. No one cares about it, and it will be entirely ignored. The infinitesimally small number of signatures on it shows how little people support the idea of the boycott. And besides that, the site is poorly constructed, poorly written and very amateurish. It's hard to take the thing very seriously.

Posted at 10:51PM on Feb 22nd 2006 by RIch Handley 0 stars

10. The fact that they changed it to Poker from Baccarat is a sign of the little stupid things that are changed that will combine to make this a shit film.
Oh my, poker is popular so let's change it to that. Stupid decisions like that do nothing more than cheapen the film and the characters.
There are too many in Hollywood responsible for these stupid decisions that deserve to be fired...

Posted at 12:50PM on Feb 23rd 2006 by Finished.Law.School 4 stars

11. Hey Finished.Law.School... you saw the movie already?! I can't believe I missed it! When is it coming out on DVD?

Posted at 2:03PM on Feb 23rd 2006 by Pepe 1 star

12. First, Casino Royale was the original Bond book, introducing Bond at his youngest. It's absurd to consider the 53 year-old Brosnan playing that role. In the real world of espionage, Brosnan would be getting ready for a desk job.

Second, Fleming's conception of Bond was never as a pretty-boy model a la Brosnan, Moore or even Lazenby (whom I thought was better than Connery even). Fleming described Bond as having "killer's eyes". I think Craig will bring just the right balance of decency and ruthlessness to the role.

Movie fans with Hollywood expectations of fantasy spies would do well to actually sit down and read the novels before claiming Craig is wrong for the role. In a film world glutted with gadgetry and gratuitous sex, making the films more realistic may be the only way to save the Bond franchise.

Posted at 3:54PM on Feb 23rd 2006 by Robert 0 stars

13. These people will eat their shoes come November 17th 2006. Some of us have set up a pro-Craig site at http://craigisbond.blogspot.com/.

Posted at 2:58PM on Feb 26th 2006 by Goldeneye 0 stars

14. I'm thrilled Daniel Craig is going to be Bond. First 007 movie I'm going to see since Octopussy, when I was 10. Get a life you Nerds, it is pretend.

Posted at 11:21PM on Feb 27th 2006 by tim feuser 0 stars

15. I have seen some of Craig's earlier performances, I would have to say that he was at best not a standout; I don't think too many were impressed, especially with the flaccid role that he played opposite Angelina Jolie. While some people claiming that Craig has skills and gusto as an actor; I just don't see it, and most people that I know, and have seen his movies agree with my assessment. He has mainly played support role which can be fill literally by hundreds of actors with a similar pedigree.

Most of his performances rank somewhere between halfway decent to entirely forgettable. You would expect that if SONY didn't select an extraordinarily good looking actor, they would select an extraordinarily skilled and experienced; which Daniel Craig is definitely not, and never pretended to be. He is simply not a first class lead man by any stretch of imagination. That leads me to one conclusion; that this selection mainly stems from financial considerations, and the lack of longer term view by the studio as well as the producer, for the entire franchise.

Posted at 3:06PM on Mar 1st 2006 by Chen 0 stars

16. I have to agree after just looking at the notbond website that it is very poorly constructed. Like a little brat that has had his favourite toy taken away, even though it was mouldy.

Lets face facts,

Brosnan was great in Goldeneye but the following were crap. The reason that Goldeneye was so great must surely have had something to do with Campbell directing.

It's up to the studio if Judy Dench is re-hired as M, not Daniel Craigs.

Clive Owen is not a good leading man (King Arthur) and would only have kept Bond on it's slippery slope south. Hugh Jackman? C'mon, Wolverine Yes. convincing spy No.

People who seriously go and boycott this film are NOT fans of James Bond.

Posted at 11:09AM on Mar 12th 2006 by Jim 0 stars

17. hmm theres a slight more than 328 signitures. 16543 (estimate) is a slight sign of whats to come. shame really, the bond films were good, now from this creation, no more will be made...

Posted at 2:10PM on Mar 13th 2006 by kuwong 0 stars

18. I don't know what films you have seen Chen, but Daniel Craig is a superb actor. You can hardly judge a performance when you admit you haven't really seen later performances. Daniel Craig didn't like the Tomb Raider film so that doesn't count, You talk about earlier films that did not impress you. Which would these be?

Posted at 4:24AM on Mar 15th 2006 by Jacqueline Trehearn-Wainwright 0 stars

19. I think Daniel Craig is a rude, ugly man who has no business playing the lovely James Bond. Maybe its true that EON owner was sleeping with him or how else could he get the job? I signed the petition and there were 16,000 ahead of me. Everyone should boycott this Bond-impersonating ape of a man!

Posted at 12:35AM on Mar 16th 2006 by Susan Ling Po 0 stars

20. Please don't listen to Tim Roth. Commanderbond.net is for 20 year old fanboys who can't get a date. They have this gay page where all of them are dressed in tuxedos! Very, very sad. You can anything you want on their site as long as you don't criticize Craig, and that is because they are up EON's butt. Go home and play with your toys Tim; you wouldn't know how to play with yourself!

Posted at 12:50AM on Mar 16th 2006 by Susan Ling Po 0 stars