18 October 2005
We thought we’d pull a Hunfington Post exclamatory headline to shake the world from the atrophy in which casting Daniel Craig as the next 007 has plunged everyone — 98% of respondents anyway.
We admit that the answers proposed in this unscientific poll open the way to superfluous bashing. Asking how Daniel Craig will fare in comparison to Sean Connery is like asking how George Bush’s legacy will measure up
to George Washington’s.
And once we’re in such an apologetic mood today, we also have to admit that we were not totally unbiased in our coverage of the Daniel Craig saga. So far we have
treated the Englishman like we do any other blond(e), i.e. we have judged him purely on looks. Let’s allow the chap an opportunity to show us brains:
Craig’s often-stiff answers to reporters’ questions also did not
impress. “Why do you want to play Bond?” the gum-chewing
Craig was asked. “Why not?” he replied. “What are the
reasons for Bond’s enduring popularity?” came a question.
Craig replied: “I don’t know the answer to that.”
Although we liked the mute version a lot, it looks as though the Speaking Craig is about to keep us in business for a very long time.
The London Mirror called the event “embarrassing.”
Complained one Brit TV commentator: “He looks more like a
banker than James Bond.”
Quite ironic, don’t you think? If Craig’s popularity remains at these depressing levels, bankers will be the first one to pull out of “Casino Royale” production.
It’s satire, stupid.