Daniel Craig: "New look" for Bond 23

Ha! Yeah, that cracked me up, too. Full tactical gear/chinos only, Mr. Secret Agent. The nerve of that assassin wearing anything not sea island cotton and/or kevlar.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVYPHx59JfA#t=24s

Isn't that Charles Aznavour????

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

00Twelve wrote:

I never really get the "too short" thing. He's reported as 5'11 & 1/2", which still makes him the shortest Bond but he could still dunk on Jack Bauer and Ethan Hunt. And be well above average. Craig never appears short in his Bond films, not to me, anyway. They apparently find plenty of average-height actors and low camera angles to sell him.

I think the "change" will be more to classic digs. It's a trend, now, anyways, the 60s look. Working with Tom Ford makes me think it's gonna be more of that retro look that he was getting into the last time 'round. Which is fine by me.

Agreed on Craig's height. It's just not a problem.

And if B23 goes for the retro look, I'll be happy with the way the film looks.

Not sure what the retro look is, but I can safely say that Craig has looked his best in both Casino Royale and Lara Croft:Tomb Raider when he was wearing spiky hair and bright colored clothes. Craig shape-shifts and morphs into someone else when his hair is darker or his clothes are older and I don't think that would be a good look for Bond.

I wasn't thinking of it that way. My point is that the aesthetic of the 60s is vastly superior to the ugliness of the present. Not that it's impossible for the postmodern to look good, but it's no sure thing. The look of the early/mid 60s, on the other hand, is classic, tried and true.

Stylistically retro is a dead end. Hard to find a possible development there.

Development? What the hell are you talking about? If anything's a dead end it's the contemporary rush to scum and grunge.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Development? What the hell are you talking about? If anything's a dead end it's the contemporary rush to scum and grunge.

Jon Hamm pulls off "retro" with class and elegance. Heck, maybe Craig could to, but he's always been at his most appealing playing it a bit scruffy and on the edge. Besides, EON always leaks out that the series is'going back to Fleming' or Craig is going with a "retro" look whenever they want to score some points off of people's fondness and nostalgia for Connery and the 60's. You never hear anyone talk about going retro to the 70's, bringing back Roger Moore's leisure suits or bell-bottoms.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

scum and grunge.

Great name for something, Khan. Just got to work out what. :)

Baker St. sponsored?

Erica Ambler wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

scum and grunge.

Great name for something, Khan. Just got to work out what. :)

great name for a French gamine's nail varnish.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Development? What the hell are you talking about? If anything's a dead end it's the contemporary rush to scum and grunge.

Naw, I meant as a design trend. There is no direction in retro, you just repeat what's been there already. What 'new' will you come up with if retro is the whole point? Not really possible to go beyond that.

Kennon wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Development? What the hell are you talking about? If anything's a dead end it's the contemporary rush to scum and grunge.

Naw, I meant as a design trend. There is no direction in retro, you just repeat what's been there already. What 'new' will you come up with if retro is the whole point? Not really possible to go beyond that.

Just by the fact that different materials and assembly methods are often in place is enough to differentiate the new product from the old. Anybody trying to make a movie that really looks 60s runs up against the fact that the filmstocks don't resemble the old ones at all, and certainly can't recreate the look without enormous digital fidgeting that still won't get it all the way there.

Domestically, Paramount got rid of its huge clothing material shop years back, so short of going to the British Isles and Italy (according to my wife), there aren't any places that have the woolen mills with the really fine fabrics.

Retro, seen in relief against what things look like today, creates its own slightly separate reality, and Bond probably needs some differentiation from everyday reality (especially the current films, since they seem to be trying to root them -- or strand/maroon them -- in the real world.)

Kennon wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Development? What the hell are you talking about? If anything's a dead end it's the contemporary rush to scum and grunge.

Naw, I meant as a design trend. There is no direction in retro, you just repeat what's been there already. What 'new' will you come up with if retro is the whole point? Not really possible to go beyond that.

I'd argue against fetishising originality. The vast majority of originality is crap, and probably because somebody came up with it already, but rather than publicizing it, dismissed it as the crap it was. Personally, I prefer revisiting the classics and riffing on them rather than conjuring up a load of dreck ex nihilo, proclaiming it "original" and then sucking around for applause from avant garde ninnies.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Kennon wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Development? What the hell are you talking about? If anything's a dead end it's the contemporary rush to scum and grunge.

Naw, I meant as a design trend. There is no direction in retro, you just repeat what's been there already. What 'new' will you come up with if retro is the whole point? Not really possible to go beyond that.

I'd argue against fetishising originality. The vast majority of originality is crap, and probably because somebody came up with it already, but rather than publicizing it, dismissed it as the crap it was. Personally, I prefer revisiting the classics and riffing on them rather than conjuring up a load of dreck ex nihilo, proclaiming it "original" and then sucking around for applause from avant garde ninnies.

But that's not what we're arguing here. It's not searching for originality where it can't be because themes or plots have been used for centuries already. Retro is about going one specific route where there can only be one outcome. Take the Beetle for example; whatever generation of that car you look at, the outcome will always have to look the same because that's the reason that model is designed that way. That's ok, people buy that car just for that reason. But you can't ever come up with a model that doesn't look like a Beetle. Say in 200 years cars hover 50 centimetres above the blacktop. But the Beetle won't because that car is not made for progress and evolvement. It's made to look retro.

I'm not advocating exact replication, Kennon. Obviously I don't want Miccoli to shoot a film that mirrors FRWL in every way possible. What I'm talking about is taking aesthetic cues from that era and transposing them to the screen today.

Yep, fair enough. Much what I'd like, too.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Quote :

In theaters today, DREAM HOUSE is (reportedly) a suspense thriller about a family that unknowingly moves into a house that holds dark mysteries within its walls. The site of grisly murders committed years earlier, the house is not happy with its new occupants. Directed by JIM SHERIDAN (IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER) from a script by DAVID LOUCKA, the stellar cast includes DANIEL CRAIG, RACHEL WEISZ and NAOMI WATTS.

Unwilling to tub-thump this film, CRAIG sat down with entertainment press in Manhattan last week to talk about the other projects he’s been working on (such as THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO and the tentatively titled BOND 23). Set to be directed by Academy Award-winner SAM MENDES, the upcoming James Bond adventure will see CRAIG sharing the screen with RALPH FIENNES, JAVIER BARDEM, JUDI DENCH and BEN WHISHAW. CRAIG admitted that, this time around, there will be some changes in his character and he’s been working with designer TOM FORD on a new look.

... and look how that turned out.

Indeed. Bond has never looked worse IMO. Yeah, even Connery's toupe looked better than Cregg's number zero thug cut. Completely jarring with the boyish, hipster suits. Add a layer of stubble and voila, you've got a chav who gatecrashed a prom and beat up a schoolkid for his suit.

Ironically this comes at a time when the clean-cut look (side-part hairstyles n' all) is back in fashion thanks to Mad Men. Speaking of which, sack Cregg and hire Hamm.