daniel craig as bond... hmm...

[clovisc]

i just had to start this thread after accidentally annoying sequimite by suggesting that robert downey jr. would be better in the role of bond than daniel craig.

i realize quite a few people disagree with me, but i feel like daniel craig is the worst thing that's happened to james bond. ever. i even prefer roger moore and (gasp) timothy dalton. the way i see it, bond is supposed to be all about the clever use of gadgets, the smart-aleck remarks, the craftiness, the shallowness and rakish use of women... he was not meant be an action hero. i expect outrageous british coldness... not the american "strong silent type."

i'm disappointed to see bond as an american butt-kicker, and feel like the franchise is now the casualty of competition within an action hero dominated market. also don't like attempt at "emotional development" of the character.

okay -- ready to hear some serious disagreement, and hopefully, a bit of concurrence... !

[noddy]

Missed the original thread, but I agree, Craig has always been a disaster, But Bond has never been got right, partly because of a cowardice regarding the nature of the character on the side of the film makers

From an English point of view, even though I don't properly count as such, the issue is highly vexed

If Bond is a toff, it has to be Edward Fox or Charles Dance, in order to bring out the chilling, calculating, basilisk eyed, misanthropic capitalist adventurer - this is why Niven was the man for Casablanca - delete the comedy and he is your officer class man (sorry, hangover - I meant his Casino Royale)

If Bond is up from the ranks however, post war, and socially rather fraudulent, then Craig is a real contender - but too soft and untroubled by a past - see his Our Friends from the North

an age back, Richard Burton was always the ideal in this shaped role, but never stood a chance whilst the idiot connery stalked the stage. Antony Hopkins (the younger) would have been magnificently dystopic. Even Michael Caine could have made the character interesting in that way (Harry Palmer was a reasonable go at it, and maybe his performance there ruled him out for the Bond films). Nowadays, Christopher Ecclestone could have been good. daniel day lewis would have poisoned the pool forever

Personally, I'd like to see an old and embittered John Hurt in the role. Or Shirley Henderson or even Kathleen Turner.

[Marion David Poff]

Well,

Without getting too technical....

I think the issue here is Thought. When Bond is all about Fantasy.

It misses the point to intellectualize what is essentially a movie aimed at the Hormones.

Bond, has over time, been a snap-shot of the target audience that the Brocoli's were trying to lure into a theater, a sort of archetype, spun for the generation.

Now, our heroes (for some) are toughened SF men, who throw themselves at the enemy. And I think Craig does that well.

I, for one, was getting rather sick of the old money/rakish/half campy thing that had developed. I prefer the dirty man of resolve.

And I prefer the emphasizing of the sweat and blood of effort and combat.

I hope that makes sense.
Marion

[Clawhammer]

Noddy :- Charles Dance, now you're talkin!!!, That guy is coolness put to music! :cool: He would be a very good Bond. (Getting a bit old now though)

Clovisc :- Stories are about character development. Putting ordinary or extraordinary characters in extraordinary situations and seeing what happens has captured our conciousness since caveman times, so a Bond film should have that too.

Wether it's the "happy little caterpillar" and the "little engine that could" to "Conan the Barbarian" "Beowulf" and "Mad Max". Every story ever told has been about the transformation of a character from one place to another. It's just how you temper the action with the story.
P.S.
Hope you had a great Xmas Buddy :)

[RazorSharp86]

I really think that with introducing Craig as Bond, they changed the whole game up. The old Bond used to kill an army, blow up a factory and come out without a scratch; even the hairstyle stayed there. Meanwhile, the new Bond gets down and dirty. He gets hurt, he makes mistakes, and is more human than any other Bond. I agree Craig is not the coolest, most composed looking Bond, but I truly do enjoy seeing him kick some a$$.

[gac]

I like the newer version. I've seen a progression starting with Brosnan. Brosnan's Bond was more of a cold blooded killer and Craig continues that trend. Bond might be a spy sent to gather intelligence but he is also an assassin. They have gotten rid of all the Q Branch gimmicks and focused on Bond as a lone operator (not a lone wolf).

Bond is getting modernized - like Marion says - but I think the modernization improves the character and story.

[noddy]

I prefer the dirty man

It would be interesting to figure out who could make an Americanized version of the role work. I don't think oiled and muscular can ever work alone though :lol:

Kevin Spacey could put some interesting questions in the way of the role, as, in another register, could Jeff Bridges

I meant to add earlier that Gabriel Byrne could probably cut it :)

[Farmer Brown]

Brosnan's Bond was more of a cold blooded killer and Craig continues that trend...

Really?

Whenever I think of Bond, Roger Moore always comes to mind (the Bond I grew up with) - but Brosnan was probably the most suave of the lot.

Craig, however, comes across as a crude thug (but again, he's portraying Bond in his earlier days).

[sarguy]

I rather like Craig as Bond. Admittedly, my main exposure to James Bond started with Goldeneye, back in high school. We didn't have cable and DVD box sets of all the 007 movies weren't the norm in Winchester, ID. After seeing Goldeneye I attempted to read Casino Royale (why not start at the beginning?), but I never finished the book because the image of Bond/Brosnan was not the image of Bond I got from the book. If anything, the sort of clumsy overkill (literally) that Craig's character shows seemed to be more in keeping with what I recall from Casino Royale, especially the mention of Bond's hand hurting after killing someone. (my memory is probably flawed, I admit)

After seeing the Brosnan films in addition to the other James Bonds, I found myself tiring of Brosnan's witty little lines all the darn time after he uses a gadget. BTW, did anyone else find that they could determine the course of the movie by what Bond was issued? John Cleese, I enjoy, but the slapstick nature of the gadget lab seemed out of place with the rest of the movies.

[Pneumothorax]

Great last day at work thread, Clovisc. Im going to straddle the fence here. First, I agree that theyve changed the entire Bond franchise away from smart alecy, cool gadget style to a more 'real movie' style. While I dont really agree with that, I had stopped seeing Bond films because they were sooo unreal as to be comical sometimes. I have been watching the new Bond and I dont particularly care for Craig of the new style, but I just look at it as not a Bond movie, but some action flick. You can see how conflicted I am :D .

[clovisc]

Well,

Now, our heroes (for some) are toughened SF men, who throw themselves at the enemy. And I think Craig does that well.

i was trying to think of a good way to say something like this in my first post... but didn't, for fear of sounding too "political." you did a great job of making the point i failed to make! :cool:

[FLYBYU44]

I used to be a diehard Bond fan, I've watched all the movies. I can't say that I've enjoyed any of the ones that Craig has been in. They were really quite boring. In fact the "Quantum of Solace" was so uninteresting that I stopped watching it half way through. There is too much drama going on now. Bond is supposed to be flippant and flirty, but Craig makes the role very serious and essentially kills the essence of what Bond is. He is supposed to be what every man wants to be and when I watch the last two movies I have no desire to day dream about being Craig's Bond.

[Doc Pyres]

Well,

Without getting too technical....

I think the issue here is Thought. When Bond is all about Fantasy.

It misses the point to intellectualize what is essentially a movie aimed at the Hormones.

Bond, has over time, been a snap-shot of the target audience that the Brocoli's were trying to lure into a theater, a sort of archetype, spun for the generation.

Now, our heroes (for some) are toughened SF men, who throw themselves at the enemy. And I think Craig does that well.

I, for one, was getting rather sick of the old money/rakish/half campy thing that had developed. I prefer the dirty man of resolve.

And I prefer the emphasizing of the sweat and blood of effort and combat.

I hope that makes sense.
Marion

It makes sense to me. It took me awhile to warm to him, but I like Craig and the direction the new Bond films are taking. Connery's Bond made sense at the time, and one could argue Moore's did too, at first anyway. Then the Moore films just got way too campy. Dalton and Brosnan were, well non-Bond Bonds. Is Craig really Bond? I suppose I'd have to say no, but then again, could anyone ever really be James Bond on screen other than Sean Connery? To me, Connery was THE Bond, to Farmer Brown, it was Moore. Different strokes for different folks. But we can never go back to those days. Time moves on and the films evolve. They've got my interest back and although something tells me he won't be Bond for a lot longer, I'm looking forward to the next Craig installment. At least they didn't cast Justin Timberlake or Robert Pattinson in the role. :p

[clovisc]

people here have some really great points... :) indeed, this is a good read during the always-weird xmas/new years transition work week... :D

i guess what really bothers me is the possibility that james bond -- like so many other great concepts -- is falling prey to the mindless greed of hollywood as it caters to popular taste. seriously -- half the time, people acquire the rights for things like g.i. joe, transformers, star trek simply because "the name" and "the brand" attracts people and sells. i know enough people in the entertainment industry that i know it doesn't matter to these people what those concepts meant before they started working with them. i feel like oftentimes, it's like the actual content is secondary at best, and we're lucky if the film fits at all within the "bigger picture" of what that concept is, or has anything to do with the original concept. it's people doing this "job" of making something that makes as much money as possible -- that is the goal. while i can understand this, i think the creative output is stinky cheese.

i agree with marion... maybe we're living more in the time of "action heroes" throwing themselves at baddies. if that is so, then this is not the time for making films about the smart-aleck hipster playboy spy who i like largely for the fact that he is UNLIKE an "action hero."

and yes, james bond is all just fantasy, and these films are just meant to be "entertainment." and it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. but it's frustrating to think how much better the quality might be if people cared more about what they were doing, and less about how many dollars something will gross. i guess that's something that frustrates me in more than just the world of movies...

[TheKnifeCollector]

The point of the newest Bond movies is the beggining of James Bond. They were pre-quels. No gadgest & no Q. They are developing his character.

Sean Connery was the consummate Bond.

And Robert Downey Jr. would so suck at being Bond.

[MANIXWORLD]

When i think of Bond,maybe Ralph Fiennes would fit the part better..Bond doesnt have to be indestructable.just outsmart the nemesis.

[Joyce Laituri]

My vote for the next Bond goes to Clive Owen!

I totally agree with Clovis, the franchise IMO is developing/evolving in sync with what today's movie goers demand. The 1963 From Russia With Love I'm betting wouldn't satisfy most audiences today expecting, and conditioned for, over stimulating action, muscular actors, special effects and a different set of film moral standards than in the 50's, 60's and 70's. I think the franchise has "dumbed down" a bit and I miss the wit and repartee of the earlier Bond films. Just my two pennies.

[224477]

My vote for the next Bond goes to Clive Owen!

Clive Owen would fit the 007 character much better than Daniel Craig does.. Good point Joyce!

[yablanowitz]

I'm glad to see that at least one person has come to the same conclusion I have. Sarguy read part of one of Ian Flemming's Bond books, and guess what? Daniel Craig has come the closest to nailing Ian's vision of Bond.

Read the books. Bond is a coarse, "bad boy" thug. I'll never understand how Roger Moore was even considered for the part. I think what we are seeing in the last couple of movies is a reboot of the franchise tuned as close as possible to the character in the books. We're just so used to the silliness that Bond flicks had become that we don't recognize it.

[Sequimite]

clovisc,

You like the action hero Sherlock Holmes, but not the action hero James Bond?

In the first Bond movie, Dr. No, Connery uses his wits, fists and weapons. There are no fancy gadgets. In From Russia with Love you had that very cool briefcase. The gadgets began to be popular in the Connery movies, but only became the stars of the movies after Connery.

I understand your point about Sherlock Holmes working (haven't seen it yet) because the style and wit work. That's how Connery was for me. After SC, they tried to copy that wit and style and I don't think they succeeded, for the most part. Finally with Craig, they are leaving Connery behind, going back to the source and creating a new style. I think it works. I will say that I saw Quantum of Solace first and just bought and saw Casino Royale, so I don't have a good take on your criticism of the way the character develops.