Why does everyone go on about Connery like he is some sort of God????
Connery is undoubtedly the high-water mark of Bond portryals and there's reason for that, which in large part stems from mass appeal. Impressively, Craig has proven his own mass appeal, just as the past Bonds have done in varying degrees.
Along those lines, however, it's tiresome to hear the "since Connery" comparisions when lauding Craig's merits. Sure, Craig is the tough, no-nonsense version of Bond and it's been a long time coming for its turn to come again, but "since Connery?" From the time Connery raised his eyebrow in his debuting scene, he established the Bond smarminess that epitiomized the screen character right onto Lazenby, Moore and up to Brosnan, which audiences have come to expect, and which the producers had made sure was there for that reason to keep them coming back...right up to Bond 21 for which they switched strategies to remedy the staleness...again, to keep them coming back.
What made Bond different from the two-fisted cinema heros up that point, was he did everything more "gentelmanly." Sure, we saw him in his now-famous close-quarter fist fights, but these were not the bar room John Wayne brawls and audiences have seen very little of that secret agent hand-to-hand, which itself was contextually exotic and fitting for an avant-garde action hero. Even his gun was smaller than standard and you never saw Connery's Bond wielding a submachine gun.
Would the Bond series lasted as long as it did, or even a fraction of that time had the smarmy, charming, glamour factor been played down? Would a Bond doing heavy-handed killings while sloshing around in toilet water generate the same wide, pop-cultural phenomenon level appeal that Connery established? Maybe, maybe not, though let's not confuse the kind of "cool" that Connery authoritatively owned when raving about Craig's "cool" factor.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
Connery is undoubtedly the high-water mark of Bond portryals and there's reason for that, which in large part stems from mass appeal.
Not really. It's all a matter of opinion. Just because the majority of Bond fans think he's the best Bond, doesn't mean that he is.
That's part of my point, though opinions are obviously a matter of individual tastes, enough shared opinions will translate into a standard or even levels of standards. The world economies practically depend on that predictability.
On popular opinion, I agree with you in that it doesn't make your own less valid. However, if there is something that many people see, there indeed must be something to it. Taking Craig for example, I cannot deny that there's something great in his portrayal, though I recognize if for what it is while maintaining my own tastes and perceptions, and most importantly, my opinions.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I generally find that the majority of people outside of forums like this who say "the best since Connery" or "Connery is best" are just saying it to try to show their "knowledge" of the Bond films. To me it is just a case of Emporer's New Clothes in that they are just too scared to go against what they consider popular opinion for fear of ridicule.
Connery certainly had his charms, especially in Goldfinger (his best outing) but he was by no means THE best.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
I generally find that the majority of people outside of forums like this who say "the best since Connery" or "Connery is best" are just saying it to try to show their "knowledge" of the Bond films. To me it is just a case of Emporer's New Clothes in that they are just too scared to go against what they consider popular opinion for fear of ridicule.
Connery certainly had his charms, especially in Goldfinger (his best outing) but he was by no means THE best.
To take it further, those you say as being "outside of this forum," I take to mean critics or journalists who are not as avid as "fans" on Bond boards and clubs; a simple qualifying test would be naming the Bond films in order. Would that be a correct understanding of your statement? If so, I don't think people in that group have enough exposure to the series to even cultivate a qualified "best" Bond opinion, particularly telling by blanket statements these critics and journalist make about the series. Therefore, it's possible that when a critic/journo raves about Connery's Bond, I think it's either along the lines of what you said, i.e., they're parrotting what everyone else thinks for the lack of their own opinion (particularly the younger ones who may haven't seen the Connery Bond films), or that they themselves experienced Connery's Bond and genuinely thinks he did in fact own the role. However, I don't think that it's a common situation in which a journo or critic secretly harbors a "Dalton/Moore/Lazenby was the best Bond" opinion, but hides it for fear of criticism or unpopularity.
However, about the Emperor's New Clothes complex that you mention, I do think that some of this happened with CR, particularly on the dumping upon done to each and every one of Craig's predecessors...except Connery. Going back to my assertions above, sure, there must be something to Craig's performance that many people saw, resulting in almost unanimous raves, but the "best since Connery" comments to me suspiciously looks like a jumping on that particular bandwagon.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Or, Craig turned in the best performance since Connery. Could be, who knows, it's all subjective really, with machinations within machinations, bandwagon-jumpers, pie-in-the-sky obtrusions...I'm beginning to wonder if Craig ever really made a Bond film at all, and this has just been a dream.
Brosnan never convinced me he was Bond, he tried sometimes, but he never made it. Craig convinced. IMHO. Which is all there is, really, opinion, and what one wishes to believe. Part of my problem with Brosnan is that he never looked the part to me, not how I envision Bond at all. Craig may not be any closer, but he can at least ACT the part successfully, and thus convince. Again, IM oh-so-humble O. Perhaps that's what the great unwashed are responding to with Craig? Who knows. Whatever it is, it's there, a whole lot of it, and folks like it. Viva le Bond.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
Or, Craig turned in the best performance since Connery. Could be, who knows, it's all subjective really, with machinations within machinations, bandwagon-jumpers, pie-in-the-sky obtrusions...I'm beginning to wonder if Craig ever really made a Bond film at all, and this has just been a dream.
Brosnan never convinced me he was Bond, he tried sometimes, but he never made it. Craig convinced. IMHO. Which is all there is, really, opinion, and what one wishes to believe. Part of my problem with Brosnan is that he never looked the part to me, not how I envision Bond at all. Craig may not be any closer, but he can at least ACT the part successfully, and thus convince. Again, IM oh-so-humble O. Perhaps that's what the great unwashed are responding to with Craig? Who knows. Whatever it is, it's there, a whole lot of it, and folks like it. Viva le Bond.
Yep, yep, yep, opinions are opinions, and every thing is subjective, but if you asert the same thing often enough, even within the same thread, maybe it'll morph into fact
You might have something there about "the great unwashed" as a commentary on today's society and the changing landscape of the middle-class, which figured prominently in the series' original success and has since declined, seemingly due to changing popular tastes. Seeing how something similar to the acid movement has become popular again (remember Lazenby's comment about Easy Rider and Bond's declining popularity? IMO, there actually was some truth in that), it's no wonder that CR succeeded the way it did because it hooked into the current culture's pulse in the same way the 60's films did, albeit with a culture of a very different texture. Let's face it, Bond's early popularity was fueled by a bourgeois taste for snobbery, though I can't really judge if that's any worse than today's taste for grunge and the giving of "at-ti-tude!"
Oh, and I forgot, I appreciate and see validity in your statement,
"Craig may not be any closer, but he can at least ACT the part successfully, and thus convince."
...which, IMRO, is one of the most objective and sensible statements I've ever read from you. Coming from you, "Craig may not be any closer" is a keeper. {[]
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Or, Craig turned in the best performance since Connery. Could be, who knows, it's all subjective really, with machinations within machinations, bandwagon-jumpers, pie-in-the-sky obtrusions...I'm beginning to wonder if Craig ever really made a Bond film at all, and this has just been a dream.
Brosnan never convinced me he was Bond, he tried sometimes, but he never made it. Craig convinced. IMHO. Which is all there is, really, opinion, and what one wishes to believe. Part of my problem with Brosnan is that he never looked the part to me, not how I envision Bond at all. Craig may not be any closer, but he can at least ACT the part successfully, and thus convince. Again, IM oh-so-humble O. Perhaps that's what the great unwashed are responding to with Craig? Who knows. Whatever it is, it's there, a whole lot of it, and folks like it. Viva le Bond.
Yep, yep, yep, opinions are opinions, and every thing is subjective, but if you asert the same thing often enough, even within the same thread, maybe it'll morph into fact
Just observing the overwhelming popular and critical majority that says Craig is the better Bond. Who am I to argue? It happens to coincide with my opinion, but so what? Not like I've ever flip-flopped and thought otherwise because "the world" loved Brosnan back in the day. I've simply always maintained Brosnan was a weak Bond, and that Craig showed promise to be a great Bond. Still feel the same way about Brosnan, and Craig did in fact bring us a great Bond in CR. IMO. I'm sure there are reasons within reasons within reasons for all this, I'll stick to my caveman ways, and like what I like.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
That's part of my point, though opinions are obviously a matter of individual tastes, enough shared opinions will translate into a standard or even levels of standards. The world economies practically depend on that predictability.
Do you think so? I'm not sure. No matter what the number of "shared" opinions of a topic that we're talking about, it seems to me that it is all still subjective.
Considering the rave about CR/Craig, especially in opion polls and "sexiest 37 year-old" contests, I can see where you're coming from...but there must be something there to touch a common nerve in so many people, as Blue alluded to above.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
edited March 2007
No, Bond (in grainy B&W) messily dispatching someone in a dirty lavatory might not have played in 1962, any more than DN's quaint judo flips would play now...but someone more eloquent than myself wrote, in a review of CR, that "Every generation seems to get the Bond it needs."
I'm probably one of the charter members of the 'Best Since Connery' mindset when it comes to Daniel Craig. I really do believe it to be the case. There's no doubt that Connery's eyebrow and attitude (under Terence Young's tutelage) set the stage...and the notion of 'cool', as it applies to Bond, has certainly evolved over the subsequent decades, to the extent that each actor has personified it to one degree or another...
But for me a number of things lined up for Craigger, in a way that they haven't for anyone else Since Connery:
1) Response to a need for something different. In Connery's case, it was simply Bond's appearance on the big screen which represented significant change (and the birth of the modern action movie hero); but it Craig's case it was a change in the direction of the franchise itself. Granted, not everyone agrees that a change was necessary...but Eon have hardly been punished, thus far, for executing one.
2) A script which knows where it's going, and what it's about---the last time Eon pledged to go 'back to Fleming' (hello Mr. Dalton), they couldn't resist throwing in the odd bit of thematically inappropriate levity/slapstick humour, which IMO diffused the energy of those films. This time round, the humour was less broad, and more grounded in character and situation, which (for me) worked.
3) An unconventional casting choice---it's easy to forget that Connery, despite being very good looking, wasn't necessarily the obvious choice when DN was being cast, due to his blue-collar background and unproven marquee value; fans were won over once the film came out (Sound familiar? Substitute Craig's looks for Connery's blue-collar background and we're there).
4) Acceptance by both fandom and general audiences.
Most new Bond actors have had at least one of these things going for him...some of them have had two, or perhaps three...but, IMRO, only Connery and Craig had all four when they stepped into the tux for the first time.
Other ongoing elements---such as toughness, charm, etc.---can be, have been, and will continue to be debated over the course of Craig's tenure. Personally, I think Craig dots more 'i's and crosses more 't's than any Bond since the mid-Sixties. And, for the first time in a long time, I actually see some recognizable Fleming on the screen B-)
Perhaps I've got it all wrong (won't be the first time, no doubt)...But that's why I think Craig is the 'best since Connery.'
But any Bond is only as good as his last movie...so Craig's challenges are only beginning. To mount any remotely credible challenge to The Originator, he'll have to string, say, four classic films together in a row---and nobody's done that...well...Since Connery
:007)
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
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
No, Bond (in grainy B&W) messily dispatching someone in a dirty lavatory might not have played in 1962, any more than DN's quaint judo flips would play now...but someone more eloquent than myself wrote, in a review of CR, that "Every generation seems to get the Bond it needs."
Yes, but my point is, it was the charm, class and style that gave Bond his initial prominence, which became the character's basic make-up. Yes, I agree with you that every generation needs its unique Bond, which actually supports my point and earlier reaction to someone else's post that charm, class and style is no longer valued today. So, in a strange way, Craig actualized in full the bourgeois dream, but instead of becoming a snob, James Bond became a slob, like another one us us!
I'm probably one of the charter members of the 'Best Since Connery' mindset when it comes to Daniel Craig. I really do believe it to be the case. There's no doubt that Connery's eyebrow and attitude (under Terence Young's tutelage) set the stage...and the notion of 'cool', as it applies to Bond, has certainly evolved over the subsequent decades, to the extent that each actor has personified it to one degree or another...
But for me a number of things lined up for Craigger, in a way that they haven't for anyone else Since Connery:
1) Response to a need for something different. In Connery's case, it was simply Bond's appearance on the big screen which represented significant change (and the birth of the modern action movie hero); but it Craig's case it was a change in the direction of the franchise itself. Granted, not everyone agrees that a change was necessary...but Eon have hardly been punished, thus far, for executing one.
2) A script which knows where it's going, and what it's about---the last time Eon pledged to go 'back to Fleming' (hello Mr. Dalton), they couldn't resist throwing in the odd bit of thematically inappropriate levity/slapstick humour, which IMO diffused the energy of those films. This time round, the humour was less broad, and more grounded in character and situation, which (for me) worked.
3) An unconventional casting choice---it's easy to forget that Connery, despite being very good looking, wasn't necessarily the obvious choice when DN was being cast, due to his blue-collar background and unproven marquee value; fans were won over once the film came out (Sound familiar? Substitute Craig's looks for Connery's blue-collar background and we're there).
4) Acceptance by both fandom and general audiences.
Most new Bond actors have had at least one of these things going for him...some of them have had two, or perhaps three...but, IMRO, only Connery and Craig had all four when they stepped into the tux for the first time.
Other ongoing elements---such as toughness, charm, etc.---can be, have been, and will continue to be debated over the course of Craig's tenure. Personally, I think Craig dots more 'i's and crosses more 't's than any Bond since the mid-Sixties. And, for the first time in a long time, I actually see some recognizable Fleming on the screen B-)
Perhaps I've got it all wrong (won't be the first time, no doubt)...But that's why I think Craig is the 'best since Connery.'
But any Bond is only as good as his last movie...so Craig's challenges are only beginning. To mount any remotely credible challenge to The Originator, he'll have to string, say, four classic films together in a row---and nobody's done that...well...Since Connery
:007)
Very good points, yes, each one arguable at different levels though I accept that they're the ones that validate "since Connery" for you, but then again, subjectivity lets you uniquely bring forth the points that precisely supports your criteria. Additionally, your points seem more like a confluence of events, which admittedly draws on the Craig-Connery similarities, but for me clarifies all the more how these similarities are based more on the luck of the draw vs. the merits of the actors' performance, presence, etc.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
Or, Craig turned in the best performance since Connery. Could be, who knows, it's all subjective really, with machinations within machinations, bandwagon-jumpers, pie-in-the-sky obtrusions...I'm beginning to wonder if Craig ever really made a Bond film at all, and this has just been a dream.
Brosnan never convinced me he was Bond, he tried sometimes, but he never made it. Craig convinced. IMHO. Which is all there is, really, opinion, and what one wishes to believe. Part of my problem with Brosnan is that he never looked the part to me, not how I envision Bond at all. Craig may not be any closer, but he can at least ACT the part successfully, and thus convince. Again, IM oh-so-humble O. Perhaps that's what the great unwashed are responding to with Craig? Who knows. Whatever it is, it's there, a whole lot of it, and folks like it. Viva le Bond.
Yep, yep, yep, opinions are opinions, and every thing is subjective, but if you asert the same thing often enough, even within the same thread, maybe it'll morph into fact
Just observing the overwhelming popular and critical majority that says Craig is the better Bond. Who am I to argue? It happens to coincide with my opinion, but so what? Not like I've ever flip-flopped and thought otherwise because "the world" loved Brosnan back in the day. I've simply always maintained Brosnan was a weak Bond, and that Craig showed promise to be a great Bond. Still feel the same way about Brosnan, and Craig did in fact bring us a great Bond in CR. IMO. I'm sure there are reasons within reasons within reasons for all this, I'll stick to my caveman ways, and like what I like.
Oh Blue, it's okay to take comfort in having the support of popular opinion. Contrary to what you've just said, popular opinion must be really important to you considering how much you mention it, and also how the fact that Brosnan was popular with "the world" has more than piqued your casual interest
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
edited March 2007
One of my mentors once told me: Luck is where preparation meets opportunity.
No doubt luck figures prominently with Connery being Bond at the right time, just as it does with Craig being Bond at the right time---But I don't think strength of performance, presence, etc., should be ruled out in either case.
Subjectivity does, as a matter of fact, allow me to uniquely bring forth the points which precisely support my criteria---as it does for us all. As I recently said elsewhere, the great charm of these boards is the conviction with which divergent views are so stridently held |)
And it was, indeed, a happy confluence of events---not unlike Broccoli and Saltzmann joining forces, for instance, without which Connery's career (and James Bond's movie persona) would have certainly taken different paths---that allows Daniel Craig to be a smash-hit James Bond in the 21st Century.
Naturally, I don't accept the premise that charm, class and style are no longer valued---thus, I disagree that Craig's Bond is a 'slob,' or that he has actualized a 'bourgeois dream,' thought this latter notion is an amusing one with some arguable merit...He has, however, laid the groundwork for a genuine character arc (!)---which is unprecedented for this franchise, and which seems to have some value for an apparently significant portion of the audience.
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
Yep, yep, yep, opinions are opinions, and every thing is subjective, but if you asert the same thing often enough, even within the same thread, maybe it'll morph into fact
Just observing the overwhelming popular and critical majority that says Craig is the better Bond. Who am I to argue? It happens to coincide with my opinion, but so what? Not like I've ever flip-flopped and thought otherwise because "the world" loved Brosnan back in the day. I've simply always maintained Brosnan was a weak Bond, and that Craig showed promise to be a great Bond. Still feel the same way about Brosnan, and Craig did in fact bring us a great Bond in CR. IMO. I'm sure there are reasons within reasons within reasons for all this, I'll stick to my caveman ways, and like what I like.
Oh Blue, it's okay to take comfort in having the support of popular opinion. Contrary to what you've just said, popular opinion must be really important to you considering how much you mention it, and also how the fact that Brosnan was popular with "the world" has more than piqued your casual interest
Nah. Like I keep saying, I like what I like. I only mention what others--critics, box office, etc.--like in response to your endless search for some reason for Craig to make sense to you. Don't agree at all that he's the slob Bond, but keep fighting the good fight and all that, whatever gets you through this. Me, I pretty much ignored the Brosnan era, got though it just fine, thanks. I recognize that he was Bond for many, he wasn't for me--and both camps are right in their POVs, right? No rhyme, no reason, it either works for ya or it doesn't.
I admit I also bring up the critical response to CR (and the box office) to counter the old "Craig will kill off the series, he's so bad" take that many around here preached after he was cast. That POV was wrong, eh? When there were so many strident voices shouting down the casting of Craig, and claiming no way he could ever win popular appeal in the role, gee I guess I do think it's valid to bring up the critical and financial success that is Craig as Bond in CR, not to bolster my POV (doesn't need it, I was prepared to be utterly disappointed like I have been for decades by EON...), but point how wrong it was to take that stance. I support anybody's take on Bond, but Craig did win the day with the general public. Many thought that couldn't happen, but it did. Heck if CR had bombed, but I had loved it, that would have been cool with me too. I'm used to geeking on under-the-radar stuff, my favorite film last year was BRICK. Heard of it? No matter, I still love it to pieces, even if it did scant little box office. Go figure.
Does this make sense to you? It's just really weird having someone say to me I care that much about what the masses prefer, just too Twilight Zone for me. Wouldn't I have been outraged at the dumping of Brosnan, if that were true? And predicted the mechanically challenged, too-short, thuggish-looking Craig would kill the series? Why isn't TSWLM my favorite Bond film, and Moore my favorite Bond? He was popular enough, and the along with Connery the cinematic Bond I grew up with. Why wouldn't I then worship Brosnan, the Bond with the qualities of all the rest rolled into one package, as his fans claim, as Bond? It's like a mixed metaphor with faulty reasoning and evidense, just doesn't add up.
I do like your funny reasons why Craig succeeded as Bond, slob Bond is pretty good, lol. Mass delusion, that's a nice one too. Weird that it can't simply be, he embodied very well the qualities that people recognize as Bond (he does for me at least). But whatever, maybe you're right and EON made the first non-Bond Bond film with the first non-Bond, and duped everybody. And made half a billion dollars in the process. Heck if true, good on them! Whatever it is, it beats the heck out of what they've been making, IMHO. It's also more Bond than what they've been making, IMHO. But to each their own.
It's like Bond has come full circle since about '64: GF was a huge hit, but arguably because it embraced/embellished a cinematic version of Bond that EON had been brewing up far more than Fleming's original character. Now arguably EON has stepped back to a more Flemingesque Bond, and it's seen as non-Bond. It's a fascinating discussion. Between us, why don't we leave out what we think the other's motivations are, eh? Boring for everybody else, I'm sure.
One wonders if this Craig vs Brosnan argument will ever end. Perhaps it is because the actors are on different ends of the spectrum. One with movie star good looks who played Bond as written for him, a little bit of a dashing super hero, with a lighter plot and some silly humor. the other, without the movie star good looks, who played Bond as written for him, tougher, grittier, less humor and helped by a Fleming novel for a storyline. Two different Bonds, two different styles of Bond movies. Arguably both accepted by the public, because all their movies were box office successes. Different strokes for different folks, but both successful. What's wrong with that?
I agree with Barry Nelson on this one, though personally Brosnan is my image definition of James Bond, it doesnt mean i cant see Craig as Bond either, Both portrayed the character and did a great job (for Craig thus far) and both of them have different styles and feels to their films, i really dont think one can rule out the other
3) An unconventional casting choice---it's easy to forget that Connery, despite being very good looking, wasn't necessarily the obvious choice when DN was being cast, due to his blue-collar background and unproven marquee value; fans were won over once the film came out (Sound familiar? Substitute Craig's looks for Connery's blue-collar background and we're there).
My mother is fortunate enough to have seen the Connery Bonds first run in the theater -- she doesn't recall Connery being considered so good looking until after the films were successful (and she recalls that point really came with "Goldfinger") and his name and face were constantly everywhere. Then, she said practically everyone said he was handsome. She, like most of her female friends, thought he was rather creepy and rat-like in appearance when he was young, certainly nowhere near as handsome as Cary Grant or Gregory Peck, who she still considers better looking, though she says that when Connery's hair went white and his face filled out and became rounder, then she started to think he was good looking. My point is that, like Craig, Connery's looks helped redefine what a leading man is supposed to look like for the masses, a mixture of their looks and the power of fame and success. Just my two cents, Loeff.
One wonders if this Craig vs Brosnan argument will ever end. Perhaps it is because the actors are on different ends of the spectrum. One with movie star good looks who played Bond as written for him, a little bit of a dashing super hero, with a lighter plot and some silly humor. the other, without the movie star good looks, who played Bond as written for him, tougher, grittier, less humor and helped by a Fleming novel for a storyline. Two different Bonds, two different styles of Bond movies. Arguably both accepted by the public, because all their movies were box office successes. Different strokes for different folks, but both successful. What's wrong with that?
Nothing at all, though I think deeming Craig to be "without movie star good looks" discounts the many, many people who think he's quite good looking. Brosnan's mannequin qualities notwithstanding, I've heard from more than a few women who say he doesn't do anything for them while Craig gets them worked up. The thing is that in many cases, that was before he even debuted as Bond, back when his name was simply announced and art films and "Tomb Raider" were among his bigger accomplishments.
Thus far, I've heard more men scoff at Craig not being handsome enough than women. I think Barbara Broccoli tapped into a largely overlooked female point of view when she courted Craig for the role. Kudos to her for that.
One wonders if this Craig vs Brosnan argument will ever end. Perhaps it is because the actors are on different ends of the spectrum. One with movie star good looks who played Bond as written for him, a little bit of a dashing super hero, with a lighter plot and some silly humor. the other, without the movie star good looks, who played Bond as written for him, tougher, grittier, less humor and helped by a Fleming novel for a storyline. Two different Bonds, two different styles of Bond movies. Arguably both accepted by the public, because all their movies were box office successes. Different strokes for different folks, but both successful. What's wrong with that?
I get what you're saying, but disagree about Craig's looks and CR's humor, both were very much in evidence IMHO. Just a different type in both cases than much of the Bond canon. Doesn't mean they aren't there. Agree about different, just weird how Craig being different equals less humor and not being good looking, many women would especially take you to task on the good looking part, just reading the forums, and have baldly said they think Craig prettier than Brosnan. Like you say, different. But toss in, all qualities measured in the eye of the beholder.
To be clear, I did not say Craig was not good looking, what I tried to say was he did not have your typical leading man movie star good looks. I have sworn off ever saying Craig is not good looking.
One wonders if this Craig vs Brosnan argument will ever end. Perhaps it is because the actors are on different ends of the spectrum. One with movie star good looks who played Bond as written for him, a little bit of a dashing super hero, with a lighter plot and some silly humor. the other, without the movie star good looks, who played Bond as written for him, tougher, grittier, less humor and helped by a Fleming novel for a storyline. Two different Bonds, two different styles of Bond movies. Arguably both accepted by the public, because all their movies were box office successes. Different strokes for different folks, but both successful. What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing as far as I am concerned. I can enjoy the movie star good looking Bond as much as the Bond without the movie star good looks. I can also enjoy the films that have a lighter tone as much as those that are more gritty.
The differing styles and tones of the actors and the films has been one of the series greatest strengths. It has to be one of the major reasons why the series has been so successful for so long.
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
I am amazed that Craig's physical appearance is touted as a shot against him. I have seen CR twice in the theatre and have talked to many women (ranging from 19 year-old mall hotties all the way up to senior citizens who saw Dr. No in the theatre) and my impression so far has been that, when Craig was on-screen in that movie, there was seldom a pair of dry panties in the house.
Concerning Craig's Bond being a "slob" or whatever-- remember that this movie is supposed to be depicting Bond in his somewhat reckless youth, perhaps before he evolved into the suave and sophisticated agent we are all familiar with.
I heartily agree. Which is why I find the argument on who was the better Bond to be so irrevelant. Well . . . personally. I'm not trying to say that everyone else should agree with me. Some fans prefer all six interpretations of Bond, some prefer three or two, or some prefer a certain actor. I happen to like all six (yes, even Brosnan whom I have come to appreciate more these days) actors and believe that each one has contributed - in his own way - to the success and longevity of the Bond franchise.
I think Craig is right for now, just as Connery was right for the 60's and Moore was right for the 70's. Each Bond has to suit the times. In that respect i also think Dalton was right for the 80's and Brosnan suited the 90's.
The fact that there hadn't been a Bond film for 6 years, meant that Brosnan was brought in to steady the ship. GE had to prove that Bond was still a worthwile and entertaining commodity. Although that had benefits, the new guy was going to be given a lot of support from fans because we would be getting Bond back, I feel that there was one drawback that haunted the Brosnan era. Brosnan had to give people exactly what they wanted and expected from a 007. I don't think his four films ever strayed too far from this formula and the quality suffered as a result.
Craig had to win a lot of people over, but he was lucky enough to have great material in Ian Fleming's novel. Personally, I think he delivered big time and I can't wait for Bond 22. I happen to prefer Craig as Bond, but that doesn't mean I'm going to dismiss what Brosnan put into his tenure at Bond. Best of luck to him in the future and I look forward to the release of 'Seraphim Falls.' :007)
"Seraphim Falls" has already been released, came and went.
A point about Craig's slobbishness: Craig's Bond dressed up just fine when he needed to, arguably as good as any other Bond. Changing the tone in CR to more Flemingesque altered Bond's world, and hence Bond himself. I'd posit that the Bond cemented by the deadly judo-chop 70s, and again embraced in the bullet-proof 90s, with Moore/Brosnan staying comfortably unruffled and all-purposely quippy (despite token drops of sweat and the stray expression of earnest), isn't Bond at all but a dim reflection...a popular one to be sure, but about as Bond as Bruce Willis's John McClane. Best that can be said of that Bond and the actors associated with it is, dudes fit the suit. Small wonder then that my favorite Brosnan Bond, TND, features Brosnan sans tux--in undeveloped SE Asia and looking for all the world like Craig's Madagascarian twin!--for a goodly chunk of the film. Brosnan in a tux, like Moore in a tux, was always more the suit than the man IMO, whereas Craig in a tux was the proverbial blunt instrument wearing just another costume, hellbent on killing somebody. As it should be IMO, and as Fleming tended to write Bond (at least as I read him). I can enjoy the various cinematic Bonds as long as I tell myself that the obvious forgeries are just that, and go along for the ride however good or bad it is. Once you remove Bond from the world significantly, he ceases to become Bond. It's a shame (to me) that Bond's cinematic landscape became so flattened over time that someone like Craig had the uphill battle he did, especially with the fans of the series, he seems to naturally embody so much of what is Bondian, yet had to fight tooth and nail for every bit of applause. Then again, maybe that's how it should be, complacent Bond needed to get shown the door--not that he's gone, just pop in a DVD. From my POV, sure glad the real thing is back.
"Seraphim Falls" has already been released, came and went.
A point about Craig's slobbishness: Craig's Bond dressed up just fine when he needed to, arguably as good as any other Bond. Changing the tone in CR to more Flemingesque altered Bond's world, and hence Bond himself. I'd posit that the Bond cemented by the deadly judo-chop 70s, and again embraced in the bullet-proof 90s, with Moore/Brosnan staying comfortably unruffled and all-purposely quippy (despite token drops of sweat and the stray expression of earnest), isn't Bond at all but a dim reflection...a popular one to be sure, but about as Bond as Bruce Willis's John McClane. Best that can be said of that Bond and the actors associated with it is, dudes fit the suit. Small wonder then that my favorite Brosnan Bond, TND, features Brosnan sans tux--in undeveloped SE Asia and looking for all the world like Craig's Madagascarian twin!--for a goodly chunk of the film. Brosnan in a tux, like Moore in a tux, was always more the suit than the man IMO, whereas Craig in a tux was the proverbial blunt instrument wearing just another costume, hellbent on killing somebody. As it should be IMO, and as Fleming tended to write Bond (at least as I read him). I can enjoy the various cinematic Bonds as long as I tell myself that the obvious forgeries are just that, and go along for the ride however good or bad it is. Once you remove Bond from the world significantly, he ceases to become Bond. It's a shame (to me) that Bond's cinematic landscape became so flattened over time that someone like Craig had the uphill battle he did, especially with the fans of the series, he seems to naturally embody so much of what is Bondian, yet had to fight tooth and nail for every bit of applause. Then again, maybe that's how it should be, complacent Bond needed to get shown the door--not that he's gone, just pop in a DVD. From my POV, sure glad the real thing is back.
I agree Sir Hilly. Blueman always stays too long at the fair.
God, I miss MBE.
You are out of control on the arrogance meter blueman.
Since you brought up Seraphim Falls, it's funny, I thought making independent films that got great reviews for the lead that made no money in theaters was considered success for an actor? That is if all your adulation over Craig's pre- Bond career is to be believed. Or were you just abrupt because Pierce got good reviews?
As soon as IDP picked it up as a distributor the theatrical release was doomed for Seraphim Falls. They didn't spend the money on advertising, and contrary to what you said, it hasn't even played in most of the larger cities yet. I'm sure it will do great in it's DVD release.
But getting back to your comments in this post, they are unbelievably insulting. "Obvious forgeries"??? What nerve. You have always seemed far more a Daniel Craig fan than a Bond fan to me. He certainly didn't have that "uphill battle" winning you over, you've been his biggest supporter here, praising and defending his every move, before you ever saw one second of him as Bond. Spare me the tea and sympathy call for Danny, you must really still think he needs it.
Since you brought up Seraphim Falls, it's funny, I thought making independent films that got great reviews for the lead that made no money in theaters was considered success for an actor? That is if all your adulation over Craig's pre- Bond career is to be believed. Or were you just abrupt because Pierce got good reviews?
Isn't the point that another member said he was looking forward to watching Seraphim Falls, even though it has already been released in cinemas (at the end of January I believe)? Moreover, did the picture get good reviews?
But getting back to your comments in this post, they are unbelievably insulting. "Obvious forgeries"??? What nerve.
We all have opinions, however distasteful they may be for others. Some people just dislike Brosnan's interpretation of the character. I don't think these people should be hounded for having that opinion or for expressing it. Personally I think that Daniel Craig and Casino Royale are the best things to happen to the cinematic Bond, although there were elements of Brosnan's performance I quite liked. (I think he is very good in parts of GoldenEye and much of The World Is Not Enough). The one performance of his (that I have seen) that has elicited a very positive reaction from me was as the unpleasant Osnard in The Tailor of Panama. A wonderful little film that, with a commanding performance from Brosnan.
As regards Craig's Bond, I find it quite incredible to see him accused of 'slobbishness'. I see no evidence for this whatsoever in Casino Royale. It reminds me of the accusation that Craig's Bond is BourneBond: easy to make and often made, but not really based on the film. In my opinion. In terms of a comparison between Craig and Brosnan I would opt for the former, but that is just my personal preference in Bond. I prefer the darker, more serious, more brutal and 'actorly' take on the character (with a hint of good humour, obviously). As noted, however, that is just my personal preference and this holds no more weight than anyone else's. (And just to confuse matters further I rather enjoy Moonraker and Moore's performance in it).
Unfortunately what was an interesting discussion has been taken wildly off topic, something I thought would end once the film had been released. I dislike seeing one member being browbeaten for expressing a perfectly legitimate opinion; surely we can take one another to task without becoming personally insulting?
Isn't the point that another member said he was looking forward to watching Seraphim Falls, even though it has already been released in cinemas (at the end of January I believe)?
It's been released in the US, but not the UK. Are you implying I should have gone to America to see it? ) I'm happy to wait thanks. Guess after its brief run in US theatres it'll probably go straight to DVD here.
It's been released in the US, but not the UK. Are you implying I should have gone to America to see it? )
Oh, I just realised that you are from Scotland (like me)! ) Apologies, for some reason I assumed that it was in response to an American member. I think you are right that the picture will go straight to DVD here, although I do recall seeing an advert for it while at the cinema a while ago, unless I am completely mistaken. A cursory look at IMDB suggests that it will be released in some other places later this year (April through June).
All this talk of Brosnan's other films makes me want to watch The Tailor of Panama again. Or The Thomas Crown Affair, which I neglected to mention previously; a very entertaining film with a strong performance from Brosnan (with the exception of the horrendous Glasgow accent on the plane at the end).
I remember the collective groan and shudder, and much reaching for the popcorn buckets to vomit in, when I saw that in the Odeon Springfield Quay. )
I did not catch it at the cinema but I do recall watching it for the first time with my brother on DVD. We just sort of looked at each other incredulously, unsure of whether it was some sort of joke or not. Satisfied that it *was* serious we laughed at how incredibly awful it is. This is one of the few mistakes in that film, a film I find sophisticated and breezily entertaining with capable performances from both Brosnan and Russo.
On the other hand, I'm not sure what to think about the upcoming The Topkapi Affair. I just hope they don't massacre the characters of Eric Ambler's The Light of Day...
Comments
Connery is undoubtedly the high-water mark of Bond portryals and there's reason for that, which in large part stems from mass appeal. Impressively, Craig has proven his own mass appeal, just as the past Bonds have done in varying degrees.
Along those lines, however, it's tiresome to hear the "since Connery" comparisions when lauding Craig's merits. Sure, Craig is the tough, no-nonsense version of Bond and it's been a long time coming for its turn to come again, but "since Connery?" From the time Connery raised his eyebrow in his debuting scene, he established the Bond smarminess that epitiomized the screen character right onto Lazenby, Moore and up to Brosnan, which audiences have come to expect, and which the producers had made sure was there for that reason to keep them coming back...right up to Bond 21 for which they switched strategies to remedy the staleness...again, to keep them coming back.
What made Bond different from the two-fisted cinema heros up that point, was he did everything more "gentelmanly." Sure, we saw him in his now-famous close-quarter fist fights, but these were not the bar room John Wayne brawls and audiences have seen very little of that secret agent hand-to-hand, which itself was contextually exotic and fitting for an avant-garde action hero. Even his gun was smaller than standard and you never saw Connery's Bond wielding a submachine gun.
Would the Bond series lasted as long as it did, or even a fraction of that time had the smarmy, charming, glamour factor been played down? Would a Bond doing heavy-handed killings while sloshing around in toilet water generate the same wide, pop-cultural phenomenon level appeal that Connery established? Maybe, maybe not, though let's not confuse the kind of "cool" that Connery authoritatively owned when raving about Craig's "cool" factor.
That's part of my point, though opinions are obviously a matter of individual tastes, enough shared opinions will translate into a standard or even levels of standards. The world economies practically depend on that predictability.
On popular opinion, I agree with you in that it doesn't make your own less valid. However, if there is something that many people see, there indeed must be something to it. Taking Craig for example, I cannot deny that there's something great in his portrayal, though I recognize if for what it is while maintaining my own tastes and perceptions, and most importantly, my opinions.
Connery certainly had his charms, especially in Goldfinger (his best outing) but he was by no means THE best.
To take it further, those you say as being "outside of this forum," I take to mean critics or journalists who are not as avid as "fans" on Bond boards and clubs; a simple qualifying test would be naming the Bond films in order. Would that be a correct understanding of your statement? If so, I don't think people in that group have enough exposure to the series to even cultivate a qualified "best" Bond opinion, particularly telling by blanket statements these critics and journalist make about the series. Therefore, it's possible that when a critic/journo raves about Connery's Bond, I think it's either along the lines of what you said, i.e., they're parrotting what everyone else thinks for the lack of their own opinion (particularly the younger ones who may haven't seen the Connery Bond films), or that they themselves experienced Connery's Bond and genuinely thinks he did in fact own the role. However, I don't think that it's a common situation in which a journo or critic secretly harbors a "Dalton/Moore/Lazenby was the best Bond" opinion, but hides it for fear of criticism or unpopularity.
However, about the Emperor's New Clothes complex that you mention, I do think that some of this happened with CR, particularly on the dumping upon done to each and every one of Craig's predecessors...except Connery. Going back to my assertions above, sure, there must be something to Craig's performance that many people saw, resulting in almost unanimous raves, but the "best since Connery" comments to me suspiciously looks like a jumping on that particular bandwagon.
Brosnan never convinced me he was Bond, he tried sometimes, but he never made it. Craig convinced. IMHO. Which is all there is, really, opinion, and what one wishes to believe. Part of my problem with Brosnan is that he never looked the part to me, not how I envision Bond at all. Craig may not be any closer, but he can at least ACT the part successfully, and thus convince. Again, IM oh-so-humble O. Perhaps that's what the great unwashed are responding to with Craig? Who knows. Whatever it is, it's there, a whole lot of it, and folks like it. Viva le Bond.
Yep, yep, yep, opinions are opinions, and every thing is subjective, but if you asert the same thing often enough, even within the same thread, maybe it'll morph into fact
You might have something there about "the great unwashed" as a commentary on today's society and the changing landscape of the middle-class, which figured prominently in the series' original success and has since declined, seemingly due to changing popular tastes. Seeing how something similar to the acid movement has become popular again (remember Lazenby's comment about Easy Rider and Bond's declining popularity? IMO, there actually was some truth in that), it's no wonder that CR succeeded the way it did because it hooked into the current culture's pulse in the same way the 60's films did, albeit with a culture of a very different texture. Let's face it, Bond's early popularity was fueled by a bourgeois taste for snobbery, though I can't really judge if that's any worse than today's taste for grunge and the giving of "at-ti-tude!"
Oh, and I forgot, I appreciate and see validity in your statement,
...which, IMRO, is one of the most objective and sensible statements I've ever read from you.
Just observing the overwhelming popular and critical majority that says Craig is the better Bond. Who am I to argue? It happens to coincide with my opinion, but so what? Not like I've ever flip-flopped and thought otherwise because "the world" loved Brosnan back in the day. I've simply always maintained Brosnan was a weak Bond, and that Craig showed promise to be a great Bond. Still feel the same way about Brosnan, and Craig did in fact bring us a great Bond in CR. IMO. I'm sure there are reasons within reasons within reasons for all this, I'll stick to my caveman ways, and like what I like.
Considering the rave about CR/Craig, especially in opion polls and "sexiest 37 year-old" contests, I can see where you're coming from...but there must be something there to touch a common nerve in so many people, as Blue alluded to above.
I'm probably one of the charter members of the 'Best Since Connery' mindset when it comes to Daniel Craig. I really do believe it to be the case. There's no doubt that Connery's eyebrow and attitude (under Terence Young's tutelage) set the stage...and the notion of 'cool', as it applies to Bond, has certainly evolved over the subsequent decades, to the extent that each actor has personified it to one degree or another...
But for me a number of things lined up for Craigger, in a way that they haven't for anyone else Since Connery:
1) Response to a need for something different. In Connery's case, it was simply Bond's appearance on the big screen which represented significant change (and the birth of the modern action movie hero); but it Craig's case it was a change in the direction of the franchise itself. Granted, not everyone agrees that a change was necessary...but Eon have hardly been punished, thus far, for executing one.
2) A script which knows where it's going, and what it's about---the last time Eon pledged to go 'back to Fleming' (hello Mr. Dalton), they couldn't resist throwing in the odd bit of thematically inappropriate levity/slapstick humour, which IMO diffused the energy of those films. This time round, the humour was less broad, and more grounded in character and situation, which (for me) worked.
3) An unconventional casting choice---it's easy to forget that Connery, despite being very good looking, wasn't necessarily the obvious choice when DN was being cast, due to his blue-collar background and unproven marquee value; fans were won over once the film came out (Sound familiar? Substitute Craig's looks for Connery's blue-collar background and we're there).
4) Acceptance by both fandom and general audiences.
Most new Bond actors have had at least one of these things going for him...some of them have had two, or perhaps three...but, IMRO, only Connery and Craig had all four when they stepped into the tux for the first time.
Other ongoing elements---such as toughness, charm, etc.---can be, have been, and will continue to be debated over the course of Craig's tenure. Personally, I think Craig dots more 'i's and crosses more 't's than any Bond since the mid-Sixties. And, for the first time in a long time, I actually see some recognizable Fleming on the screen B-)
Perhaps I've got it all wrong (won't be the first time, no doubt)...But that's why I think Craig is the 'best since Connery.'
But any Bond is only as good as his last movie...so Craig's challenges are only beginning. To mount any remotely credible challenge to The Originator, he'll have to string, say, four classic films together in a row---and nobody's done that...well...Since Connery
:007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Yes, but my point is, it was the charm, class and style that gave Bond his initial prominence, which became the character's basic make-up. Yes, I agree with you that every generation needs its unique Bond, which actually supports my point and earlier reaction to someone else's post that charm, class and style is no longer valued today. So, in a strange way, Craig actualized in full the bourgeois dream, but instead of becoming a snob, James Bond became a slob, like another one us us!
Very good points, yes, each one arguable at different levels though I accept that they're the ones that validate "since Connery" for you, but then again, subjectivity lets you uniquely bring forth the points that precisely supports your criteria. Additionally, your points seem more like a confluence of events, which admittedly draws on the Craig-Connery similarities, but for me clarifies all the more how these similarities are based more on the luck of the draw vs. the merits of the actors' performance, presence, etc.
Oh Blue, it's okay to take comfort in having the support of popular opinion. Contrary to what you've just said, popular opinion must be really important to you considering how much you mention it, and also how the fact that Brosnan was popular with "the world" has more than piqued your casual interest
No doubt luck figures prominently with Connery being Bond at the right time, just as it does with Craig being Bond at the right time---But I don't think strength of performance, presence, etc., should be ruled out in either case.
Subjectivity does, as a matter of fact, allow me to uniquely bring forth the points which precisely support my criteria---as it does for us all. As I recently said elsewhere, the great charm of these boards is the conviction with which divergent views are so stridently held
And it was, indeed, a happy confluence of events---not unlike Broccoli and Saltzmann joining forces, for instance, without which Connery's career (and James Bond's movie persona) would have certainly taken different paths---that allows Daniel Craig to be a smash-hit James Bond in the 21st Century.
Naturally, I don't accept the premise that charm, class and style are no longer valued---thus, I disagree that Craig's Bond is a 'slob,' or that he has actualized a 'bourgeois dream,' thought this latter notion is an amusing one with some arguable merit...He has, however, laid the groundwork for a genuine character arc (!)---which is unprecedented for this franchise, and which seems to have some value for an apparently significant portion of the audience.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Nah. Like I keep saying, I like what I like. I only mention what others--critics, box office, etc.--like in response to your endless search for some reason for Craig to make sense to you. Don't agree at all that he's the slob Bond, but keep fighting the good fight and all that, whatever gets you through this. Me, I pretty much ignored the Brosnan era, got though it just fine, thanks. I recognize that he was Bond for many, he wasn't for me--and both camps are right in their POVs, right? No rhyme, no reason, it either works for ya or it doesn't.
I admit I also bring up the critical response to CR (and the box office) to counter the old "Craig will kill off the series, he's so bad" take that many around here preached after he was cast. That POV was wrong, eh? When there were so many strident voices shouting down the casting of Craig, and claiming no way he could ever win popular appeal in the role, gee I guess I do think it's valid to bring up the critical and financial success that is Craig as Bond in CR, not to bolster my POV (doesn't need it, I was prepared to be utterly disappointed like I have been for decades by EON...), but point how wrong it was to take that stance. I support anybody's take on Bond, but Craig did win the day with the general public. Many thought that couldn't happen, but it did. Heck if CR had bombed, but I had loved it, that would have been cool with me too. I'm used to geeking on under-the-radar stuff, my favorite film last year was BRICK. Heard of it? No matter, I still love it to pieces, even if it did scant little box office. Go figure.
Does this make sense to you? It's just really weird having someone say to me I care that much about what the masses prefer, just too Twilight Zone for me. Wouldn't I have been outraged at the dumping of Brosnan, if that were true? And predicted the mechanically challenged, too-short, thuggish-looking Craig would kill the series? Why isn't TSWLM my favorite Bond film, and Moore my favorite Bond? He was popular enough, and the along with Connery the cinematic Bond I grew up with. Why wouldn't I then worship Brosnan, the Bond with the qualities of all the rest rolled into one package, as his fans claim, as Bond? It's like a mixed metaphor with faulty reasoning and evidense, just doesn't add up.
I do like your funny reasons why Craig succeeded as Bond, slob Bond is pretty good, lol. Mass delusion, that's a nice one too. Weird that it can't simply be, he embodied very well the qualities that people recognize as Bond (he does for me at least). But whatever, maybe you're right and EON made the first non-Bond Bond film with the first non-Bond, and duped everybody. And made half a billion dollars in the process. Heck if true, good on them! Whatever it is, it beats the heck out of what they've been making, IMHO. It's also more Bond than what they've been making, IMHO. But to each their own.
It's like Bond has come full circle since about '64: GF was a huge hit, but arguably because it embraced/embellished a cinematic version of Bond that EON had been brewing up far more than Fleming's original character. Now arguably EON has stepped back to a more Flemingesque Bond, and it's seen as non-Bond. It's a fascinating discussion. Between us, why don't we leave out what we think the other's motivations are, eh? Boring for everybody else, I'm sure.
Thus far, I've heard more men scoff at Craig not being handsome enough than women. I think Barbara Broccoli tapped into a largely overlooked female point of view when she courted Craig for the role. Kudos to her for that.
I get what you're saying, but disagree about Craig's looks and CR's humor, both were very much in evidence IMHO. Just a different type in both cases than much of the Bond canon. Doesn't mean they aren't there. Agree about different, just weird how Craig being different equals less humor and not being good looking, many women would especially take you to task on the good looking part, just reading the forums, and have baldly said they think Craig prettier than Brosnan. Like you say, different. But toss in, all qualities measured in the eye of the beholder.
What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing as far as I am concerned. I can enjoy the movie star good looking Bond as much as the Bond without the movie star good looks. I can also enjoy the films that have a lighter tone as much as those that are more gritty.
The differing styles and tones of the actors and the films has been one of the series greatest strengths. It has to be one of the major reasons why the series has been so successful for so long.
Concerning Craig's Bond being a "slob" or whatever-- remember that this movie is supposed to be depicting Bond in his somewhat reckless youth, perhaps before he evolved into the suave and sophisticated agent we are all familiar with.
I think Craig is right for now, just as Connery was right for the 60's and Moore was right for the 70's. Each Bond has to suit the times. In that respect i also think Dalton was right for the 80's and Brosnan suited the 90's.
The fact that there hadn't been a Bond film for 6 years, meant that Brosnan was brought in to steady the ship. GE had to prove that Bond was still a worthwile and entertaining commodity. Although that had benefits, the new guy was going to be given a lot of support from fans because we would be getting Bond back, I feel that there was one drawback that haunted the Brosnan era. Brosnan had to give people exactly what they wanted and expected from a 007. I don't think his four films ever strayed too far from this formula and the quality suffered as a result.
Craig had to win a lot of people over, but he was lucky enough to have great material in Ian Fleming's novel. Personally, I think he delivered big time and I can't wait for Bond 22. I happen to prefer Craig as Bond, but that doesn't mean I'm going to dismiss what Brosnan put into his tenure at Bond. Best of luck to him in the future and I look forward to the release of 'Seraphim Falls.' :007)
A point about Craig's slobbishness: Craig's Bond dressed up just fine when he needed to, arguably as good as any other Bond. Changing the tone in CR to more Flemingesque altered Bond's world, and hence Bond himself. I'd posit that the Bond cemented by the deadly judo-chop 70s, and again embraced in the bullet-proof 90s, with Moore/Brosnan staying comfortably unruffled and all-purposely quippy (despite token drops of sweat and the stray expression of earnest), isn't Bond at all but a dim reflection...a popular one to be sure, but about as Bond as Bruce Willis's John McClane. Best that can be said of that Bond and the actors associated with it is, dudes fit the suit. Small wonder then that my favorite Brosnan Bond, TND, features Brosnan sans tux--in undeveloped SE Asia and looking for all the world like Craig's Madagascarian twin!--for a goodly chunk of the film. Brosnan in a tux, like Moore in a tux, was always more the suit than the man IMO, whereas Craig in a tux was the proverbial blunt instrument wearing just another costume, hellbent on killing somebody. As it should be IMO, and as Fleming tended to write Bond (at least as I read him). I can enjoy the various cinematic Bonds as long as I tell myself that the obvious forgeries are just that, and go along for the ride however good or bad it is. Once you remove Bond from the world significantly, he ceases to become Bond. It's a shame (to me) that Bond's cinematic landscape became so flattened over time that someone like Craig had the uphill battle he did, especially with the fans of the series, he seems to naturally embody so much of what is Bondian, yet had to fight tooth and nail for every bit of applause. Then again, maybe that's how it should be, complacent Bond needed to get shown the door--not that he's gone, just pop in a DVD. From my POV, sure glad the real thing is back.
Indeed. 8-) If only you had taken your own hint and made that post your last on the subject. Oh well, at least supes did.
I agree Sir Hilly. Blueman always stays too long at the fair.
God, I miss MBE.
You are out of control on the arrogance meter blueman.
Since you brought up Seraphim Falls, it's funny, I thought making independent films that got great reviews for the lead that made no money in theaters was considered success for an actor? That is if all your adulation over Craig's pre- Bond career is to be believed. Or were you just abrupt because Pierce got good reviews?
As soon as IDP picked it up as a distributor the theatrical release was doomed for Seraphim Falls. They didn't spend the money on advertising, and contrary to what you said, it hasn't even played in most of the larger cities yet. I'm sure it will do great in it's DVD release.
But getting back to your comments in this post, they are unbelievably insulting. "Obvious forgeries"??? What nerve. You have always seemed far more a Daniel Craig fan than a Bond fan to me. He certainly didn't have that "uphill battle" winning you over, you've been his biggest supporter here, praising and defending his every move, before you ever saw one second of him as Bond. Spare me the tea and sympathy call for Danny, you must really still think he needs it.
We all have opinions, however distasteful they may be for others. Some people just dislike Brosnan's interpretation of the character. I don't think these people should be hounded for having that opinion or for expressing it. Personally I think that Daniel Craig and Casino Royale are the best things to happen to the cinematic Bond, although there were elements of Brosnan's performance I quite liked. (I think he is very good in parts of GoldenEye and much of The World Is Not Enough). The one performance of his (that I have seen) that has elicited a very positive reaction from me was as the unpleasant Osnard in The Tailor of Panama. A wonderful little film that, with a commanding performance from Brosnan.
As regards Craig's Bond, I find it quite incredible to see him accused of 'slobbishness'. I see no evidence for this whatsoever in Casino Royale. It reminds me of the accusation that Craig's Bond is BourneBond: easy to make and often made, but not really based on the film. In my opinion. In terms of a comparison between Craig and Brosnan I would opt for the former, but that is just my personal preference in Bond. I prefer the darker, more serious, more brutal and 'actorly' take on the character (with a hint of good humour, obviously). As noted, however, that is just my personal preference and this holds no more weight than anyone else's. (And just to confuse matters further I rather enjoy Moonraker and Moore's performance in it).
Unfortunately what was an interesting discussion has been taken wildly off topic, something I thought would end once the film had been released. I dislike seeing one member being browbeaten for expressing a perfectly legitimate opinion; surely we can take one another to task without becoming personally insulting?
It's been released in the US, but not the UK. Are you implying I should have gone to America to see it?
All this talk of Brosnan's other films makes me want to watch The Tailor of Panama again. Or The Thomas Crown Affair, which I neglected to mention previously; a very entertaining film with a strong performance from Brosnan (with the exception of the horrendous Glasgow accent on the plane at the end).
On the other hand, I'm not sure what to think about the upcoming The Topkapi Affair. I just hope they don't massacre the characters of Eric Ambler's The Light of Day...