Loeff, I was thinking about your Craig as Bond version 2.0 thesis...
I guess I consider what Hamilton created in the early 70s as Bond 2.0. Starting with Connery's relatively campy and really markedly different performance in DAF, and then into the Moore films, Bond quickly evolved into an almost Derek Flint-ish uberhero--which IMO is not the Bond of the first four films/OHMSS (not sure which Bond/Flint was in YOLT, the character is such a cypher...). It was that 2.0 uberBond that stuck the next couple of decades, no matter how EON tried to tweak it, right through the Brosnan Bonds IMHO. Craig's Bond would then be a throwback Bond, he seems to have more in common with Connery's DN Bond than with anything else. Just hard for me to think of most of the post-OHMSS films as continuing the original character, when it's so vastly changed. Also hard for me to think of Craig's Bond as 2.0 when CR fits in so nicely with that first run of Fleming-based Bonds. It'll be interesting to see what he does with the character in the next couple of films, and which way EON takes this reset series...
Anyway, random thoughts per your take.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,991Quartermasters
Loeff, I was thinking about your Craig as Bond version 2.0 thesis...
I guess I consider what Hamilton created in the early 70s as Bond 2.0. Starting with Connery's relatively campy and really markedly different performance in DAF, and then into the Moore films, Bond quickly evolved into an almost Derek Flint-ish uberhero--which IMO is not the Bond of the first four films/OHMSS (not sure which Bond/Flint was in YOLT, the character is such a cypher...). It was that 2.0 uberBond that stuck the next couple of decades, no matter how EON tried to tweak it, right through the Brosnan Bonds IMHO. Craig's Bond would then be a throwback Bond, he seems to have more in common with Connery's DN Bond than with anything else. Just hard for me to think of most of the post-OHMSS films as continuing the original character, when it's so vastly changed. Also hard for me to think of Craig's Bond as 2.0 when CR fits in so nicely with that first run of Fleming-based Bonds. It'll be interesting to see what he does with the character in the next couple of films, and which way EON takes this reset series...
Anyway, random thoughts per your take.
It's an interesting theory, blue, and I can't say I disagree all that much...but to me, Bond 1.0 simply began to decline in the early Seventies, and well into the Eighties---occasionally making minor course corrections, such as FYEO (Tracy's gravestone, listing her death in 1969, for me clearly unites these wildy different interpretations). Dalton's Bond, while magically losing 20 ostensible years off Bond's age, simply adjusted the tone...and Brosnan comfortably eased in a bit more humour, whilst retaining Dalton's more human self-reflection---yet was still (IMRO) a Status Quo Bond who traced his roots back to Classic Connery. Brozzer is, in a way, like a "Greatest Hits" Bond, cherrypicking specific elements from each actor who preceded him, shaking them up in a martini mixer and concocting an appealing, homogeneous blend, which obviously appealed to the masses.
Basically (for me), despite variations in tone and overall quality, Connery-to-Brosnan is Classic Formula Bond---with the exception of OHMSS, which I think really was an out-of-time harbinger of the Bond we're now getting with The New Guy.
With Craig, we have not only a markedly different Bond in terms of look, but also in terms of style and formula---accompanied by a pre-announced 'reboot'; i.e., Bond has just been promoted to '00' status, etc. No doubt elements of the Precious Classic Formula will return, but for me these things are what put distance between Craig's 2.0 and Connery's 1.0.
Mind you, I agree with your hypothesis that Craig is a throwback to the Classic Bond of the early Sixties, in terms of 'man's man' appeal and masculinity...in a sense, he's a rediscovery of what made the character so riveting out of the gate---but the added literary flavour is distinctly different, even from Early Connery.
Sorry to ramble on...and I'm probably way off base---but I'm just making this up as I go along
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
I guess I consider what Hamilton created in the early 70s as Bond 2.0. Starting with Connery's relatively campy and really markedly different performance in DAF, and then into the Moore films, Bond quickly evolved into an almost Derek Flint-ish uberhero--which IMO is not the Bond of the first four films/OHMSS (not sure which Bond/Flint was in YOLT, the character is such a cypher...). It was that 2.0 uberBond that stuck the next couple of decades, no matter how EON tried to tweak it, right through the Brosnan Bonds IMHO. Craig's Bond would then be a throwback Bond, he seems to have more in common with Connery's DN Bond than with anything else. Just hard for me to think of most of the post-OHMSS films as continuing the original character, when it's so vastly changed. Also hard for me to think of Craig's Bond as 2.0 when CR fits in so nicely with that first run of Fleming-based Bonds. It'll be interesting to see what he does with the character in the next couple of films, and which way EON takes this reset series...
Anyway, random thoughts per your take.
It's an interesting theory, blue, and I can't say I disagree all that much...but to me, Bond 1.0 simply began to decline in the early Seventies, and well into the Eighties---occasionally making minor course corrections, such as FYEO (Tracy's gravestone, listing her death in 1969, for me clearly unites these wildy different interpretations). Dalton's Bond, while magically losing 20 ostensible years off Bond's age, simply adjusted the tone...and Brosnan comfortably eased in a bit more humour, whilst retaining Dalton's more human self-reflection---yet was still (IMRO) a Status Quo Bond who traced his roots back to Classic Connery. Brozzer is, in a way, like a "Greatest Hits" Bond, cherrypicking specific elements from each actor who preceded him, shaking them up in a martini mixer and concocting an appealing, homogeneous blend, which obviously appealed to the masses.
Basically (for me), despite variations in tone and overall quality, Connery-to-Brosnan is Classic Formula Bond---with the exception of OHMSS, which I think really was an out-of-time harbinger of the Bond we're now getting with The New Guy.
With Craig, we have not only a markedly different Bond in terms of look, but also in terms of style and formula---accompanied by a pre-announced 'reboot'; i.e., Bond has just been promoted to '00' status, etc. No doubt elements of the Precious Classic Formula will return, but for me these things are what put distance between Craig's 2.0 and Connery's 1.0.
Mind you, I agree with your hypothesis that Craig is a throwback to the Classic Bond of the early Sixties, in terms of 'man's man' appeal and masculinity...in a sense, he's a rediscovery of what made the character so riveting out of the gate---but the added literary flavour is distinctly different, even from Early Connery.
Sorry to ramble on...and I'm probably way off base---but I'm just making this up as I go along
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM