James Bond\'s Official First Offical New Image, Officially - UPDATED

[Brendon Connelly]

Last time there was a "first image" from James Bond's Skyfall, he had his back turned and was barely dressed. The time before, it turned out to be an image from Casino Royale. But now, it's officially official, and we have the first image of the man as we know and... er... well, maybe not exactly love him. UPDATE: We've now received a copy without watermarks from Sony. Click through to make it much bigger. Or, as it happens, by USA Today in the USA today to see it in print. For some reason. Now - let's have some images of the other characters, perhaps. There's plenty of those that we haven't seen before and some, like Javier Bardem's villain for example, might have any manner of scarring, fluffy pets or nipple mutations to reveal.

[Hannah Shaw-Williams]

Cripes, is that Daniel Craig or Sam Fisher? Maybe it's the haircut but he looks ... different.

[Dusty]

A little bit tired of the producers trying so hard to distance theselves from the refined James Bond. What's with the stubble? There comes a point when trying to make something "edgy" for the sake of making something "edgy" is a bit ridiculous.

[Benjamin1345]

A little bit tired of the producers trying so hard to distance theselves from the refined James Bond. What's with the stubble? There comes a point when trying to make something "edgy" for the sake of making something "edgy" is a bit ridiculous.

Does stubble really qualify as ridiculous?

[toodoor]

I'm a little bit tired of people making huge judgements based on very little information. What's with the assumptions? There comes a point when being down on everything for the sake of being down on everything becomes ridiculous.

[CraigMD]

Bond needs a shave. And a bigger gun.

[Mad_Man_Moon]

I'm a little bit tired of people making huge judgements based on very little information. What's with the assumptions? There comes a point when being down on everything for the sake of being down on everything becomes ridiculous.

Hah!
Hehehe...

[Dusty]

I'm a little bit tired of people making huge judgements based on very little information. What's with the assumptions? There comes a point when being down on everything for the sake of being down on everything becomes ridiculous.

I am a James Bond fanatic. I own and have read all of Flemings Bond novels several times, and have been a major fan of the films since I was little, owning all of them, first on VHS, and now on DVD. I even have a tattoo of the oo7 logo on my arm. Since there have already been TWO films with Daniel Craig in which they have tried to reinvent Bond for me to make judgements by, and since I know the character traits of Bond far better than you ever will, I think it's safe to make assumptions when my knowledge of how things are is expert level.

Maybe YOU need to practice what you preach...

[toodoor]

I am a James Bond fanatic. I own and have read all of Flemings Bond novels several times, and have been a major fan of the films since I was little, owning all of them, first on VHS, and now on DVD. I even have a tattoo of the oo7 logo on my arm. Since there have already been TWO films with Daniel Craig in which they have tried to reinvent Bond for me to make judgements by, and since I know the character traits of Bond far better than you ever will, I think it's safe to make assumptions when my knowledge of how things are is expert level.

Maybe YOU need to practice what you preach...

I also own all the books and have seen all the films. Beyond the first few Connery's the films vary wildly from the books (which is fine, by the end clearly Fleming was tired of his creation and the most interesting stories were the short ones where Bond barely features) in tone and style, they were of their time. Which is what the Craig ones are. Casino Royale was the closest in tone to Fleming since the first few, with some extra action scenes added because there is very little in the book. Quantum was poor in my view, but I know people who like it. I felt it had no plot and just barrelled along slightly stupidly.

Although that's all irrelevant to my point, which is that all you have seen is one photo, without context or idea of plot, therefore any assumption you make is bullshit.

[Dusty]

I also own all the books and have seen all the films. Beyond the first few Connery's the films vary wildly from the books (which is fine, by the end clearly Fleming was tired of his creation and the most interesting stories were the short ones where Bond barely features) in tone and style, they were of their time. Which is what the Craig ones are. Casino Royale was the closest in tone to Fleming since the first few, with some extra action scenes added because there is very little in the book. Quantum was poor in my view, but I know people who like it. I felt it had no plot and just barrelled along slightly stupidly.

Although that's all irrelevant to my point, which is that all you have seen is one photo, without context or idea of plot, therefore any assumption you make is bullshit.

I REALLY own and have read the books.



Can we see your collection?

Craig's Bond is more like a thug than the character Fleming created. That's the point you missed as you jumped into this thread. Fleming's Bond has certain things about him that the poducers have been trying to reinvent since Craig took on the role, and it's annoying. If it's not broke...