Talk:Daniel Craig/Archive 1

message: I don't know if it's correct to say that the Lara Croft film introduced him to American audiences. I remember hearing some buzz about him in Elizabeth which while it didn't do Lara Croft-level box office, was still a substantial success in North America. Thoughts? 23skidoo 21:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't heard about that, but it's no big deal to me either way. I made the change because the text as it stood made it seem that Road to Perdition was his first introduction to US audiences, which on the evidence of Tomb Raider was manifestly untrue. If there is clear evidence of Elizabeth's priority, I have no problem with that. Nude Amazon 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar enough with Elizabeth to be certain. I do know it was listed as one of his career highlights more often than Tomb Raider when he was announced as Bond; the only time I saw Tomb Raider connected to him in the media was when it was rumored Angelina Jolie was up for the role of Vesper. 23skidoo 15:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's probably the better film — and was even nominated for the Best Picture Oscar — from memory his role in Elizabeth is a relatively minor one. Certainly he wasn't one of the main stars (who were pretty much Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Joseph Fiennes and Craig's Our Friends in the North co-star Christopher Eccleston). Angmering 18:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction to US audiences

message: why isn't anything about the accident while shooting Casino here? was it an unconfirmed rumor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.243.59.119 (talk • contribs) .
:Not really notable for his bio here. It was exaggerated by the media. He lost a crown during a fight sequence, it was put back, there no was no bleeding according to Craig himself. And really that's nothing compared to what happened to his predecessors. Brosnan blew out his knee in Die Another Day just for starters. K1Bond007 20:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  Many actors have accidents while filming.  Jackie Chan has had lots of injuries.  I wouldn't count on sites like craignotbond for accurate info.  One heading reads "NBC Poll Shows Half of All Americans Reject Craig!" (emphasis mine) Total votes against him: 11,638 Total US population: 298,540,066  That's a bit of a math problem! I recall not likeing Brosnan as Bond at first, but after actually watching Goldeneye, I thought he did a good job. PrometheusX303 18:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: accident

message: Um, it appears someone has tampered with this article, talking about Daniel Craig really being a woman and stuff like this.  I'm surprised no one has reported this mischief.  As I menioned in the subject of this comment, this is so full of nonsense that it's essentially becoming reminiscent of an article on Uncyclopedia!  Those kinds of articles have no place here.  This is Wikipedia, where we tell the truth.  So, I really think all of this joke information should be fixed. —This unsigned comment was added by Speyeker (talk • contribs) .
:I semi-protected it for the time being. Random IPs and new users should now not be able to edit the article. K1Bond007 03:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. Some people must really have too much time on their hands. 23skidoo 03:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This reads like an Uncyclopedia article 

message: Might just be me (!) but I found this sentence really confusing when I first read it:
Craig had been having an affair with Sienna Miller, his co-star in Layer Cake (2005). Miller had recently been engaged to Jude Law, who had previously had an affair with his children's nanny in July.
User:TallAlex
--22:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to clean it up, see how that goes. K1Bond007 01:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: There's a new promo shot of Craig as Bond. It's an update of the original already on this entry, difference being this time he's sporting his actual Bond look. Figured it was okay to put it up, but regular Wikipedians might be better at cropping it and whatnot. It's available HERE. Anyway, thought it would be a better choice than the current one since it's more accurate, not to mention I think it's just a better pic of him. 65.10.221.108 21:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see much difference between it and the one already in use. Speaking of which, I think the Bond promo shot should be the lead image of Craig, not the shot of him in Layer Cake, since Bond is likely to be his best-known and most predominant role -- certainly it is at the present moment. Thoughts? 23skidoo 22:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering we have an entire section devoted to Bond, I would rather leave it as is. K1Bond007 22:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Promo shot

message: What idiots think that Daniel Craig is not a good Bond!!! their websites should be wiped off the face of the internet!!! I think that he is the best bond since sean C. and unlike the 'last' bond(he who shall not be named) there is a lot less body hair to see. and that is a good thing! i have seen casino royale several times and will watch it again,if only to check out Daniel Craigs Butt one more time!! 12 out of 10 for the new james bond!
Can people stop changing the address to the defunct CraigNotBond, the new site is not run by the same person and is not just a new address for the old site - it is run by a different person.
The new site doesn't have enough press coverage (only one small mention in a entertainment Blog) to be considered enough for a wikipedia mention - the inclusion of the new address should be considered advertising and spam and deleted/reverted to old state
WikipediaBondFan 00:23, 15 September 2006 (BST)
:: Indeed, I've seen people like them before, defending the North Korean regime. Delusion is too light a word for it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.25.122 (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CraigNotBond

message: This article looks very amateurish, doesn't have a non-neutral point of view, and largely is a poorly worded defense of Craig playing Bond.  For the record, I'm completely neutral in this, and just happened upon this by following a link through Connery's page.  But there's a lot wrong with this article, and I don't feel knowledgable enough about him to do the rewritting.  I'll bold problem parts of the worst written part of this article and add some comments:
Daniel Craig's hiring as James Bond was a controversial decision among a minor contingent of fans and critics. A small number of opponents of Daniel Craig's casting as Bond had threatened to boycott Casino Royale, going so far as to setup a website urging others to boycott the film as well. The web site called on visitors to Boycott Casino Royale. The site drew controversy in itself due to its alleged use of misinformation, photoshopped images and libelous remarks. It was widely believed that polls shown on the website were doctored to show Daniel Craig as unpopular .[4]  - (Blah blah blah, this is really poorly worded and just way too long.  Who cares about this website so much?   This should probably be about a sentence long, mentioning the website and that's it.  The writer is also clearly very much against the website.  Likeiwise, the bolded comments are clearly biased.  Who decides what is a small number and what isn't?  The length of this paragraph already implies otherwise.)
Much of the supposed animosity toward Craig's casting refers to his blond hair, his height and his looks. Although he is 5'11" (about 1.8m) (about one inch (about 2.5cm) above the U.S. and UK height average) he is referred to as short in comparison to all of the previous James Bond actors, who are consistently reported as being between 6'1" (about 1.85 m) and 6'2" (about 1.88 m). The subject of his looks is often the most debated, although his having blond hair, instead of Bond's typical dark hair, is most often the first issue from negative reception. Consequently, a few members of the media have referred to him as "James Blond." It is worth noting that Roger Moore also sported a lighter sandy coloured hair throughout many of his films; however, he is not considered blond.  -  (This part is ok, just again seems very poorly written.  Its just listing various critisisms and then reactions)
Many news sources made false reports about Daniel Craig after his casting. One of the biggest claims was that Craig could not apparently drive a manual car, however, Craig holds an unrestricted licence. Another report stated that during a fight scene, Craig had two teeth knocked out. This is untrue, as Craig later told the media it was a crown that came loose and was replaced within ten minutes by a local dentist. Other reports stated that Craig had heat rash, was afraid of guns, and that he was even afraid of the water. All of these rumours and reports were later denied by Barbara Broccoli in an interview with Variety [9].  - (Again, this sounds so damn defensive.  This sounds like pointless message board bickering, not an encyclopedia article.  It also seems to be written of the point of view that the media is conspiring against this guy with their stories.  And what the hell does an unrestricted license have to do with knowing how drive a stick shift?  You don't need a different license to be allowed to drive a manual transmission car, but its something that one needs to learn how to do before they can drive one well.)
In spite of the objections, notable actors and actresses who have worked with Craig or have been in previous Bond films have backed the choice of Craig as Bond. This list includes four of the past Bond actors: Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan. Samantha Bond (Miss Moneypenny) and Christopher Lee (Francisco Scaramanga) have also backed Craig, as has former Bond villain Sean Bean (Alec Trevelyan), who worked with Craig in Sharpe's Eagle. Actors and actresses starring in Casino Royale have also added their support, including Mads Mikkelsen, Eva Green, and Caterina Murino, as well as Judi Dench, who criticized the negative reaction saying, "I hate how people have been attacking Daniel Craig. It's despicable and it disgusts me. I have filmed with him in Prague and the Bahamas and he is a fine actor. He brings something new and edgy to the role. His critics will be proved wrong." Clive Owen, who had been linked to the role, has also spoken in defense of Craig.[5] It is now obvious that the vast majority of fans are excited about the film, and about seeing Daniel Craig take the role, as the trailers have met widespread enthusiasm.  (Oh my god ... maybe the costume designer also likes Craig, and the prop guy too, and perhaps the makeup lady ... again, this probably be a sentence or two in length.  This seems like it was written by Craig's 12 year old son or something like that ... And again, completely biased.) 
Daniel Craig had received some critics that he was a best Bond actor since Sir Sean Connery and among others. This was a relief to all fans. (LOL - very unbiased and nice grammar as well)
This is one of the worst articles I've read on this site.  It needs some major work, including less focus on this website war thing and some more details about his rather extensive acting career before Bond. 69.47.227.234 12:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alot of what is highlighted is true and can't be considered bias
Althought it's unfortunate no one in the above conversation seems to be signing their articles, I agree that there is a lot of stuff that has been added to the article in the past that is unnecessary. Besides illiterate statements such as the "best Bond actor" comment that was justly removed, who really cares if Craig can or cannot drive a certain type of car. If a guy can memorize a script, he can learn to drive stick. This article needs an enema and I have a high-colonic ready to go. 23skidoo 18:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've completed the revision, removing the last bit of overt POV. One thing that is missing is we need to cite sources for the actors supporting Craig, most notably Judi Dench as she is actually quoted. I deleted the list of Casino Royale actors supporting Craig as this is unnecessary to point out as they are coworkers; I kept Dench because she's a Bond veteran and, as I said, she's quoted. 23skidoo 18:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a Citation to the Dench quote. User:194.80.240.66 00:07, 25 October 2006 (BST)
The long complaint above is mine.  I registered soon after.  Thanks, 23skidoo, that's a huge improvement. Funkadillo 07:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite / Bias 

message: This article says both Nov 16 and 17, the Sony Pictures website says Nov 16 , does anyone know the definitive answer? Escaper7 18:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casino Royale release date

message: i find it VERY odd that there's no picture.... Zazaban 01:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't we have a picutre? 

message: Sean Connery is called a Scottish Actor but yet Daniel Craig is called a British actor. There needs to be some sort of consistency for nationality. Scottish, Enlgish, Welsh is not a nationality but British is. So either Daniel Craig's nationality needs to be changed or Sean Connery's plus numerous others that are in consistent.
By the way- is he really english ? He looks slavic to me. Too high cheekbones for an Englishman, and strange thin eyes; that indicates mongolians in the bloodline. - Janine
:He was born in England is therefore English. He could've been born black and still be English. Dur. illspirit|talk 21:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wrong: try learning about ethnicity and nationality and the difference between the two.  If you are born in England you are British: that is the nation state of which you are a citizen (or subject).  Duh!  English is one's ethnic group - as is Jewish, for example; British is one's nationality: for instance, you wouldn't say of Philip Green or Michael Grade "he's Jewish - not British!!" because they are both (unless you were an ill-educated idiot, or racist, or both).  Technically - at least - you cannot be black and English - you can be black and British as your ethnicity is African or Afro-Caribbean, not English.  [I am ethnically English and of British nationality; my mate David is ethnically Afro-Caribbean and of British nationality.]  Anyway, you call someone born in California "American", or in Catalonia "Spanish", or in Tuscany "Italian".  Unfortunately, however, the petty nationalism that seems to grow almost daily in some parts of this United (sic) Kingdom (especially since the huge New Labour vote-buying con which was "devolution") does mean that Sean Connery and Alexander Graham Bell are usually called Scottish, Catherine Zeta Jones and Dylan Thomas are usually called Welsh, George Best and Seamus Heaney are usually called Irish, but Daniel Craig and Charles Darwin are usually called British. How convenient for our provincial brothers and sisters: you keep a tight hold of "your" achievers as your "own" yet you also wish to claim English successes too - and under a term you increasingly despise and refuse to use to describe yourselves!! Anyone would think there was some form of inferiority complex.  The time for English independence draws closer....income tax would drop 10p in the pound for a start. 86.17.247.135 03:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Then its equally true to say "Sean Connery is British as long as Scotland remains a part of the United Kingom". We should say Connery is Scottish and Craig is English, OR say both are British (for consistency). I hate to disappoint poster 86.17.247.135, but on our census forms here in the UK our government considers our nationality as English, Scottish, Welsh, etc. NOT British. His opinion does not represent the true facts.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.25.122 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  From the example you posted yourself, the census forms do not say that at all. Nick Cooper (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: I removed the following new addition by an IP editor:
He is currently dating twenty-nine year old film producer, Satsuki Mitchell.
The cited source doesn't make this claim. 14:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Life 

message: Whoever whom changed the pic, good job! His face wasn't showing well on that Casino Royale-poster. I hate it when people put up such pics just because a new "cool and awesome" movie is on the bigscreens. PureRumble 00:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a screenshot I took from the trailer on apple.com. Hopefully that works for now. Gunkyboy 11:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the photo per Wikipedia's fair use policy.  --Madchester 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is a screenshot from a film not fair use? 70.231.234.68 21:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A screenshot is considered fairuse, only if it is used to describe the TV show or film in question.  A screenshot can't be used to describe an actual biographical article. --Madchester 21:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of many articles, including some featured articles, that use screenshots in a biographical infobox, in the absence of a public domain picture. I don't think it hurts anyone. In fact, it advertises the movie. So the copyright holders would probably be quite happy if their star had one of his promotional pictures on his wikipedia page, which is currently getting  tens of thousands of hits a day. 70.132.26.141 07:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Did the other photo near the top violate a fair use policy?  If so, can/should we put another photo up?  The 007 poster is small and a bit unclear. Thoughts? 154.20.187.23 20:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good job changing pic 

message: This page has been vandalised and quite pathetically I might add, I'm not sure of the procedure to correct it or I'd do it myself, I'm not actually even sure if this is the correct way to report it. Wahooney 07:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to history, click the link to the edited version that came directly before the vandalized version. That'll take you to the old page. Then on that page, click edit, and click edit this page. The article will automatically revert to that version. 70.132.26.141 08:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I'm going to delete the mention of this site because it is a "fake" "anti-Bond" site - as you can see from http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.craigsnotbond.com/  the same message was there in February.--Sergey Romanov 17:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CraigsNotBond 

message: What's going on here?  It keeps appearing and disappearing, sometimes even as different images.  This page keeps getting vandalized, should it be partially protected?  154.20.187.23 07:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are people that think those pictures are not fair use. You can call them wikipedia snobs. It does absolutely no harm to use those pictures, and a fair use rationale can be made, but these guys go by the book. As a result, this is a very incomplete article. 70.132.23.138 07:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's very irritating.  How do you suggest we deal with this? 154.20.187.23 04:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a legitimate fair use image. CovenantD 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Covenant, any suggestions eh? 154.20.187.23 23:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wish I did. I agree that the article needs one. At the very least, it would be okay to put a pic of him as Bond in that section since it is a critical review of the actor in the role, and therefore fair use. It's when character pics are used as actor main pics that it runs into trouble. In fact, I'm gonna go find one from the Casino Royale (2006 film) article. CovenantD 23:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. CovenantD 00:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Very nice work, thanks guys. 154.20.187.23 12:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks more like a paparazzi picture.68.43.1.27 09:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where'd the photo go? 

message: He´s the best Bond since Connery, so please add a Bond picture to the top right side !!!!!!!!!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.189.19.92 (talk • contribs) 
:No. Read the thread just above this one. CovenantD 23:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a Bond Picture 

message: Can someone remove these links from the reference section? Especially when you take into consideration that the film has banked in over 417 million world wide and cunt of a webmistress took down her boycott/petiton.
::I'm in favour of removing them.  I just checked and that site is apparently still active.  Some people have way too much time on their hands.  Or are immature, whichever choice you favour.  Take the links down, but somebody will undoubtedly put them back. 154.20.187.23 11:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DanielCraigIsNotBond.com links. 

message: Uh, the year here conflicts with the year on Ewan McGregor's filmograpy.
--65.189.245.127 21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, funny thing is, both of these release years are incorrect. It is actually coming out in 2008, according to IMDb. Good, old, reliable Wikipedia huh?. — RunningAway 21:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I, Lucifer Year 

message: Is it necessary to denote the journalist Craig almost attacked as gay? Because I haven't seen it established that the man's homosexuality was what antagonized Craig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
:Didn't Craig say that he considered Bond bisexual?  In that light, I doubt he'd do such a thing.  72.166.213.31 18:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Craig didn't say anything about Bond being gay or bi, nor did he suggest a gay scene.  This was all silliness by Brosnan fans. 72.179.57.251 04:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay aspect of journalist