In the meantime, I'll just smile my way through Craig's tenure and enjoy the present restored state of chumminess here at AJB.
Indeed. Although I may not like Craig's incarnation of the character, I'd still find it hard to live in a world without Bond. I may have to stomach Craig being around for a while, {[]
Thats pretty much how I felt about Pierce Brosnans tenure.
Agreed. And why I didn't bother with the internet forums until after he was ousted, didn't see the point in dropping eggs on the heads of those enjoying Brosnan/Bond. But the transistion to Craig was ugly on the boards, as Alex pointed out. Interesting that the folks who were most into the verbal abuse re Craig/Craig supporters are not around much anymore, the regulars from that time who are still posting I don't remember as being in attack-mode back then, not like those who have vanished. Maybe one day they'll get a new Bond they like?
And, yes, I am one of those who feel vindicated at Craig. I saw him in 1998 in 'Our Friends in the North' with Chris Ecclestone and he had star potential then.
It all comes down to the image of Bond you have in your head or your general conception of the character. My own image of James Bond is the reasonably conventional handsome devil, ideally with black hair, tall, refined, but able to look after himself. Someone like Gerard Butler I suppose. I think George Lazenby probably looked more like James Bond than any other actor. It's a highly subjective thing but for me James Bond is not supposed to a craggy bodybuilder type with a crewcut. At the end of the title sequence for CR they have a big close up of DC and moments like that are where I really struggle. I liked the urbane qualities and look of the actors because it was always such a charming contrast to the blue-collar action heroes in other films. Sure, in CR Craig wore a tux and drove an Aston Martin, but he never really convinced me that he belonged in that world and his looks are part of that.
So some fans don't think Craig looks like James Bond just as some fans thought Brosnan was a bit bland and so on...
Well put Mr. Pringle. And agree about Butler, up until the Craig announcement my money was on Butler getting the part (even though Craig was my first choice) for reasons stated. Although there is that unquantifiable attribute that Craig has buckets of, and no one else--including Butler--quite has...Craig is just effing cool, the coolest Bond since Connery in his prime IMO. Which puts him over the top for me, "unconventional" looks inclusive. Butler would've worked for me as a Lazenby-type Bond, which is not bad at all IMO.
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
And why I didn't bother with the internet forums until after he was ousted, didn't see the point in dropping eggs on the heads of those enjoying Brosnan/Bond.
I would hope that everyone would post regardless of whether or not they're satisfied with the current state of Bond. Everyone has so much to offer; I like hearing from members of all perspectives.
I'm not trying to drop eggs on anyone's head. I would hope that everyone has strong enough convictions that they'll continue to love Craig's Bond no matter what I say.
If you want to live in a world like the one highhopes jokingly described earlier, then maybe you have come to the wrong place.
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
And why I didn't bother with the internet forums until after he was ousted, didn't see the point in dropping eggs on the heads of those enjoying Brosnan/Bond.
I would hope that everyone would post regardless of whether or not they're satisfied with the current state of Bond. Everyone has so much to offer; I like hearing from members of all perspectives.
Totally agree--sans verbal abuse. I admit I went to the Brosnan films as they were released, just didn't see anything to get worked up about enough one way or the other to find an internet forum and post, is all.
Would never think that of you, Tee. Your sarcasm always comes off as pretty playful, can't think of when it struck me as a door-slam. More inviting, like. {[]
If you want to live in a world like the one highhopes described earlier, then maybe you have come to the wrong place.
Not getting this comment, but 3 out 4 ain't bad. {[] I do appreciate that the culture of Craig-hate is now for all intents and purposes gone from the Bond boards these days, and that there's room for fans of all the Bonds now.
Tee HeeCBT Headquarters: Chicago, ILPosts: 917MI6 Agent
I would hope that everyone would post regardless of whether or not they're satisfied with the current state of Bond. Everyone has so much to offer; I like hearing from members of all perspectives.
Totally agree--sans verbal abuse. I admit I went to the Brosnan films as they were released, just didn't see anything to get worked up about enough one way or the other to find an internet forum and post, is all.
Fair enough. You certainly would have been welcome to, had you been motivated.
Would never think that of you, Tee. Your sarcasm always comes off as pretty playful, can't think of when it struck me as a door-slam. More inviting, like. {[]
Blast! I'll have to try harder next time.
In all seriousness, I'm glad we understand each other blue. Afterall, I'm here to make friends, not enemies. {[]
If you want to live in a world like the one highhopes described earlier, then maybe you have come to the wrong place.
Not getting this comment, but 3 out 4 ain't bad. {[] I do appreciate that the culture of Craig-hate is now for all intents and purposes gone from the Bond boards these days, and that there's room for fans of all the Bonds now.
HH shares some of his religious aspirations on page 2. He has high hopes indeed.
By all means I too am a fan of all the Bonds. But somebody's got to be last on my list of favorites. And that just happens to be Craig at the moment.
"My acting range? Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised..."
By all means I too am a fan of all the Bonds. But somebody's got to be last on my list of favorites. And that just happens to be Craig at the moment.
And that's fine. To tell the truth, as much as I enjoyed Craig in the role, there probably isn't an actor mentioned on this thread that I wouldn't have enjoyed as Bond in Casino Royale. I'm not sure I would have enjoyed DAD or the Moore Bonds anymore with Craig in them. For me, the real meaning of Casino Royale is that there is a new, less cartoonish, formulaic Bond film out there that actually requires an actor, not just a well-stuffed tuxedo. When Craig's tenure is finished, EON is welcome to go back to the dark-haired, prettier type -- but the guy has to be able to act and the film has to require acting. I want a real guy -- relatively speaking -- not a superhero.
It seems ironic to me that there is a clamor for Bond to look like the fellow in the Fleming novels - a dark Hoagy Carmichael, but no similar hand ringing when the films tossed Fleming's material on the trash heap with blind abandon.
I don't understand how fans can reject DC, but embrace Roger Moore with his red hair, crossed eye and Marilyn Monroe mole?
The improvements in charecter, dialog and return to a Fleming plot in CR'06 was such an improvement over the last 17 or so films, we should just be thankful for that.
I find DC to be a fine incarnation of James Bond of 2006. A former SAS type with an easy smile and expensive watch. Driven by an unhappy childhood to be single minded and totally devoted to his crusade to protect Queen and Country. I am not sure that any of the previous Bond's are right for the new century. Craig is!
Something tells me that if the producers went back to something "hairy" as Craig Freguson so cleverly put it, there would be an equal amout of consternation.
By all means I too am a fan of all the Bonds. But somebody's got to be last on my list of favorites. And that just happens to be Craig at the moment.
And that's fine. To tell the truth, as much as I enjoyed Craig in the role, there probably isn't an actor mentioned on this thread that I wouldn't have enjoyed as Bond in Casino Royale. I'm not sure I would have enjoyed DAD or the Moore Bonds anymore with Craig in them. For me, the real meaning of Casino Royale is that there is a new, less cartoonish, formulaic Bond film out there that actually requires an actor, not just a well-stuffed tuxedo. When Craig's tenure is finished, EON is welcome to go back to the dark-haired, prettier type -- but the guy has to be able to act and the film has to require acting. I want a real guy -- relatively speaking -- not a superhero.
Hey there HH, seems you might have been subconsciously inspired by a greeting card you recently received, " ... the real meaning of Casino Royale ... " but I agree with the gist and echo what you said. An important lesson I learned from the 06 debacle in the Bond Universe is that the sum of everything here, including CR and DC, is just that, the Bond Universe itself, and indeed the larger thing than CR itself is that it is a Bond film.
To answer the question of this post, no, I no longer have doubts that DC made CR/Bond his own, not counting the film's success and similar prospects for the next installments.
However, I sit with Tee Hee in terms of preference; though Craig (eventually) made the cut for me, I don't regard him as the Bond messiah and particularly so for literary Bond standards since "purists" are hailing him as such. What keeps me from joining that mindset is actually...well, that diabolical genius, Ian Fleming and his manipulative use of words that seared into my tragically conventional imagination, very defining traits of the Bond character ...and some of you folks know which of those I have in mind.
Interestingly enough since this naturally leads to looking at the cinematic Bond tradition, credit to its reinvigoration is being given to the popular "literary Bond argument" that Craig is said to have resurrected in spades. Ironically, that argument is generally played out to render practically the bulk of series prior as sadly inferior. Again, I actually have to agree with HH on this and appreciate the unique texture the series has taken in its entirety.
"...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.....
Supes, do you really appreciate the uniqueness of, say, AVTAK? You don't pine for an actual Bond film when you watch that one (or others...)? I can appreciate some elasticity on EON's behalf, sure, but there should at least be a good movie made each time out. And that hasn't always been the case, IMO. I realize there's massive subjectivity going on with that perception, guess we all draw our own lines in the sand. I'm with 7245 on this, the last couple decades of Bond were pretty awful, IMHO. Fleming is still spinning in his grave over some of them, whereas I think he'd be quite happy with Craig in CR. JMHO.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Supes, do you really appreciate the uniqueness of, say, AVTAK? You don't pine for an actual Bond film when you watch that one (or others...)? I can appreciate some elasticity on EON's behalf, sure, but there should at least be a good movie made each time out. And that hasn't always been the case, IMO. I realize there's massive subjectivity going on with that perception, guess we all draw our own lines in the sand. I'm with 7245 on this, the last couple decades of Bond were pretty awful, IMHO. Fleming is still spinning in his grave over some of them, whereas I think he'd be quite happy with Craig in CR. JMHO.
Interesting you brought up AVTAK, Blue, which my kid was watching last night on DVD; Since I really have little, real initiative to go pop in a Bond DVD when I actually get an urging to do so, I watched a little and would have finished if I weren't so tired. I belabored the point how snowboarding was still considered at that time an aberation to winter sports, and stressed how Commies were just as cool, interesting and treatening villains as Nazis. Yes, at the time AVTAK was released, I was sorely aware of how poor it was in many many areas (especially so as I just began reading the books), but still I found myself stoked when the first commercial previews came out in Spring 1985, and I watched it at least 6 times at the theater during that summer. I suppose that save for the whole letdown I had regarding DC's announcement, in the end I came around because like AVTAK, CR was a Bond film!
The way I see it, DC lacks the sophistication that IMO is a cinematic prerequisite to the character (how else can you effectively communicate that internalized trait in a visual medium?), and RM was in desperate need for the hard-edged, piratical quality that rounded up the Bond persona and if only they can lend their best traits to one another like the making of a Reeses chocolate bar, but with some dark hair thrown in...
As a side, before seeing my son watching AVTAK, an hour before I told my wife I had that hankering for a Bond movie and she said, "OK, what about CR?" and I said "Ok, after the news," underestimating the realities of being middle aged )
"...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.....
Personally I thought some of the casino scenes in CR displayed Bond at his most sophsticated ever, also his scenes with Solange, I was really caught off guard by the bungalow scene paerticularly, wasn't expecting that level of sophistication in a Bond seduction scene at all. Perhaps we have different expectations as to what sophisticated is? Ah viva le differance yet again.
The way I see it, DC lacks the sophistication that IMO is a cinematic prerequisite to the character (how else can you effectively communicate that internalized trait in a visual medium?), )
I suppose it is how you interpret that.
I find Daniel Craig, the man, incredibly sophisticated. Hes been on numerous chat shows and radio interviews over here due to the Golden Compass and he is more like Bond in real life then many before him. He appears on Parkinson in a grey double breasted suit ala Goldfinger and pulls it off, he answers wittily the questions thrown at him during a radio interview. Where did this non-sophistication come from?
And the role?
Well, CR is Bond learning to be sophisticted. In this one he's referred to as ex-SAS. One of those men, as Vesper says, who buy rolex watches to look more stylish. As CR is a film about Bonds metamorphosis. In this one he learns to love the things we love him for - Aston Martin, dinner jacket, vodka martini - his rough edges are about to be shorn off. That is the point of CR.
I found DCs gaming table scenes with Le Chiffre very stylish. In fact he makes a new trend when ordering the Vodka martini so much that the table follows him. Its obvious that he is the style leader around the green baize table.
That may define Craigs 007. The outward showings of style hiding the beast within. Certainly thats more impressive then a "greatest hits" package like Brosnan.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I find Daniel Craig, the man, incredibly sophisticated. Hes been on numerous chat shows and radio interviews over here due to the Golden Compass and he is more like Bond in real life then many before him. He appears on Parkinson in a grey double breasted suit ala Goldfinger and pulls it off, he answers wittily the questions thrown at him during a radio interview.
Though I haven't seen these interviews myself, I don't doubt your observations are spot on. I do agree Craig is intelligent, articulated and most importantly, unassuming, just as someone like Johnny Depp, Mike Myers and Bill Murray, who despite their personas actually have something to say. Then, as Loeffs mentioned, there's Roger Moore who in real life exudes such genuine class that transcends any of his roles, that being the sum of his natural temperament, demeanor, grace and decency. As much as these are rare and valuable qualities, though, let's not forget that what is ultimately presented on screen is distinct from any of that, just as Mike Myers will show you in his Austin Powers movies.
Noel Coward epitomized style, elegance and good taste but that doesn't equate him with the likes of Bond, at least not in the cinematic tradition established by Connery. But, what exactly was that "tradition?" After watching the OHMSS extra features, it's interesting how people initially determined Lazenby, a male model, as being suitable for the part because he "certainly looked like James Bond." Personally I instantly got what they were conceptually implying. However, because GL and SC aren't twins, I take that to mean a conceptual "look" and essence to the character that Connery inadvertently created, which has then served as the template for future Bonds (though to a limit w/Dalton, and more so w/Craig). Although I accept Craig in the role, it's certainly not according to the series' self-established standard/tradition, pre-CR considering that w/CR, for the most part that was thrown out the window (and IMO it wasn't a totally bad thing.)
Well, CR is Bond learning to be sophisticted...his rough edges are about to be shorn off. That is the point of CR.
Yes, I understand that, but you are implying that explains why there's an apparent lack of sophistication in the character and/or Craig's screen persona, yet you contradict yourself in your following points, that basically Craig is not at all lacking in these qualities.
Certainly thats more impressive then a "greatest hits" package like Brosnan.
I'm not sure how the Craig vs. Brosnan issue is specifically relevant in this discussion as it obviously is for you, since I was never of the persuation of Brosnan as the only, or best alternative for CR. Wasn't it Moore who I earlier brought up in contrast? In terms of my own preferences, however, you might as well broaden the opposition to "anyone and everyone else better suited for the role" vs. Craig. But hey, give me credit for accepting the situation and trying to make the most out of it.
Where did this non-sophistication come from? ...as Vesper says, who buy rolex watches to look more stylish...In this one he learns to love the things we love him for - Aston Martin, dinner jacket, vodka martini...I found DCs gaming table scenes with Le Chiffre very stylish. In fact he makes a new trend when ordering the Vodka martini so much that the table follows him. Its obvious that he is the style leader around the green baize table...That may define Craigs 007...The outward showings of style hiding the beast within.
I think you need to distinguish between how a role is written to convey specific traits, and the actual results. GE's script for example, belabored throughout the story to reinforce how Bond was reckless with vehicles, irreverent, proceeds too intiuitively, lacks objectivity, etc. Those things, along with the Rolex-looking Omega and other "Bondian" personal effects in the end are props, just as a Bentley or Batmobile was for Michael Keaton. If you personally concluded that Craig was a trend setter, then the film-makers accomplished their objective in convincing at least one viewer (and of course countless more) what they intended to get across. To me, the dressing in CR served to establish those particular character traits, but just as a 57-year old Roger Moore is supposed to be an elite, lethal instrument of the British Government that goes around wupping a lot of a**. That however, doesn't mean I was completely sold, nor does it in CR automatically bestows style and good taste to Craig's Bond when a group of well-funded yet deviant gamblers copycat his drink order.
"...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.....
What the CR'06 Script brought to the Bond Canon was the first convincing instance of 007 falling in love with a lady - someone he would quit the service for.
Both the Vesper (Bond Girl) and Bond charecters are written much differently for Casino Royale than they were for any previous film. Vesper is the intelluctal equal of Bond and a stronger person than any previous Bond girl. She can look oo7 straight in the eyes and say "No" and that attracts and confounds both the audiance and Bond. Vesper's strength initially sparks Bond's interest, but it is her vulnerability that finally hooks Bond, when he realises how deeply the violence of his job affects Vesper. She represents for Bond a "last chance" to live a clean life.
Bond in CR'06 is not the brilliant genius of previous incarnations. He is tough and single minded, but capable of getting carried away and making really stupid decisions - killiing Mollacka, revealing his identity to LeChiffre. As a new double-o he is not a sophisticated agent - that is not so say he doesn't know about the more stylish things in life - like cars and martini's. The new Bond is on his way to becoming the slick "oo" presented as a "fait accompli" in previous films
Craig was able to project the physically tough Bond and show an emotional element that was never required of a previous Bond - except poor Lazenby, whose noble attempt was thrawted by a script that was long on action and pitiously short on emotion.
Bond 21 was a real departure for the series, and Craig's looks are less the issue than the charecter driven story - something that hasn't really been seen before in the Bond films. A very welcome change!
Although I accept Craig in the role, it's certainly not according to the series' self-established standard/tradition, pre-CR considering that w/CR, for the most part that was thrown out the window (and IMO it wasn't a totally bad thing.)
Very much disagree: they threw out 30+ years of hollow cliche Bond, and went back to the traditional Bond (ie 60s) IMO. The "standard" Bond went off the rails at some point during TSWLM IMHO, and never fully regained it's prominence till Craig/CR. Post-TSWLM, I don't see much sophistication in Bond at all, just a lot of aping behavior that comes across as shallow and crass. JMHO.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Although I accept Craig in the role, it's certainly not according to the series' self-established standard/tradition, pre-CR considering that w/CR, for the most part that was thrown out the window (and IMO it wasn't a totally bad thing.)
Very much disagree: they threw out 30+ years of hollow cliche Bond, and went back to the traditional Bond (ie 60s) IMO. The "standard" Bond went off the rails at some point during TSWLM IMHO, and never fully regained it's prominence till Craig/CR. Post-TSWLM, I don't see much sophistication in Bond at all, just a lot of aping behavior that comes across as shallow and crass. JMHO.
But don't you think that the "shallow and crass" began from Dr. No? Who actually talks, walks and acts like that in real life? It's all part of the screen fantasy created, which arguably is the central element that from that point propelled Bond's appeal that endures to this day.
As far as aping, don't you think that happens when they have females giving Bond the lingering dreamy ogling looks, or whenever Bond wears a tuxedo? Given the environment and clientelle of the Montenegro casino to make a point, LC was the most appropriately dressed and having everyone else in a tux is obviously contrived to allow Bond to wear his, just as it obviously was the case in the tux scenes in AVTAK, TLD, TWINE, 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: 2,656MI6 Agent
Craig was able to project the physically tough Bond and show an emotional element that was never required of a previous Bond - except poor Lazenby, whose noble attempt was thrawted by a script that was long on action and pitiously short on emotion.
I think the OHMSS script was the brilliant fruition of reconciling the series standards with the added consideration of the source story (as well as Fleming's body of work). However, to a literary idealist which I assume you to be, OHMSS in the end is a mediocre compromise. I however, accept it for reasons said.
On going literary, I think Dalton captured enough of the source (if not completely) to deem him successful in nailing it, but too much so to his detriment; what many overlook, including the so called "purists" is that the literary Bond wouldn't prove all that interesting and riveting on screen, which is something the producers recognized and remedied at the very begining.
Craig was able to project the physically tough Bond and show an emotional element that was never required of a previous Bond...
Bond 21 was a real departure for the series, and Craig's looks are less the issue than the charecter driven story - something that hasn't really been seen before in the Bond films. A very welcome change!
To me, that's the great paradox, sorting out the good and bad of both the films and their literary source and reconciling that tension. Craig/CR successfully distilled the key, enduring elements of the source, the soul so to speak, and interpreted these in a visually stylish product. However, that brings us to the core of this paradox, in that the driving force and inspiration for the CR "departure," is the very same zeal and fascination for the Fleming material that (at least) for an enthusiast like myself, leaves me longing for a fair approximation of the character that Fleming impressed onto the imagination; and unfortunately, much of that is too indelible and non-negotiable to give assent.
Story driven, yes, but a dynamic, non-conventional Bond does not automatically equate with the "real" Bond. What you actually have is something more closer to Jason Bourne, but with just enough stylistic accents to call it Bond as some of the CR proponents argue. If you really want to make something distinctively Bond, but with that "edge," I'd again go back to the source and make a more meaningful look at the essence and not just do a lazy reinvention of the Bond charm, wit, irreverence, etc. only to then call that "character driven." Again, that doesn't prevent me from appreciating DC/CR; its just that I don't think it's "all that."
"...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.....
You have pointed out the essential conflict, reconciling Fleming's Bond with the Eon Bond. You are very correct that EON saw early on that the literary fellow was a self obsessed snob, and Young and Connery created a clever - distinct film hero, not seen before.
I am a bigger lover of the Fleming novels, and find them far better than any of the films. So the best one can hope for in the end is the presenation of some key Fleming's elements in any Bond film. The further Eon deviated from Fleming, the worse it got (IMHO). I actually find the old "Danger Man" series closer to the spirit of Fleming than anything EON ever made.
I like TD very much, he tried hard to capture the Bond of the books - but the scripts gave his interpetation little support. For some reason though I don't see TD in CR'06 even if he were 20 years younger .... can't say why.
I know that Bond will never be made properly as a period piece with all the novels filmed in order - a project someone may undertake in fifty years or so. For me just seeing more of Fleming's charecter development realised on screen is enough - it transcends the "look" of the actors involved.
While OHMSS may have been the most faithful screenplay, in the end, I think Peter Hunt found presenting the core "love story" was both outside of his skill as a director, not part of EON's desire for a great action movie, and way beyond the capability of his leading man. So here was an instance where the Bond actors may have had the right looks, but ultimately failed in the effort to present credible charecters.
what many overlook, including the so called "purists" is that the literary Bond wouldn't prove all that interesting and riveting on screen, which is something the producers recognized and remedied at the very begining.
This is debatable; the differences between the literary and cinematic versions of Bond have provoked a lot of comment with various people trying to claim credit for the "lightening" of the Bond character for the cinema. These have included Terence Young and Diane Cilento, while the authors of Martinis, Girls And Guns trace the origins of film-Bond to Fleming's own lightening of the character in GF. It would be untrue to say that the literary Bond never cracks a joke- he just doesn't do it as often or as obviously as he does onscreen. What the films have done, and totally correctly IMHO, is to play up certain aspects of the character while downplaying others. A book can tell you, while a film has to show you.
Supes, I think you're mixing your arguments a bit: EON's Bond DN to about TSWLM did present a movied-up (incresingly so) Bond, sure. But EON's Bond post-TSWLM stretched that even farther IMO, way past anything like Bond--even EON's Bond--should be IMHO.
There's stretching Fleming, then there's the break; IMO the break came halfway through TSWLM. CR brought Bond back to that first 10 or so year stretch of EON's Bond IMO, and I think that's what a lot of Bond fans are reacting to. Some fans don't think EON ever really jumped the rails, that movie Bond simply evolved through a number of acceptable (more or less) incarnations. And that's fine. I lost the series (or it lost me...?) when it started eating itself self-consciously, late 70s (although YOLT did that, as DAF did outright spoof Bond, arguably), and assumed I'd be fine with what they regurgitated up. I wasn't, haven't been, and am really geeked about the reboot/Craig. It's Bond like it should be IMO. But yeah, to each his or her own. Craig's not it for you, so be it. I do thin CR fits best next to, say, TB and that era more than anything in the last 30 or so years.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Supes, I think you're mixing your arguments a bit: EON's Bond DN to about TSWLM did present a movied-up (increasingly so) Bond, sure. But EON's Bond post-TSWLM stretched that even farther IMO… I do think CR fits best next to, say, TB and that era more than anything in the last 30 or so years.
Yeah, you do get where I’m coming from. Once you heard the offbeat “radio” sounds in the beginning of DN, and saw the larger than life, expressionist sets, you knew you stepped into spy fantasy land and even with CR decades later, Bond is still there in some measure. You’re correct to place the demarcation line at TB, since that was when the series began to suffer from its own success by upping the ante at the expense of creative honesty. With that though, let’s recognize what movie Bond for what he is and what he’s always been irregardless of that worsening you pinpointed at mid TSWLM, since the camp has always been there from the get go, and to further say he’s finally returned to his roots IMO is really just short of pretending about something that never was. But come on, a direct result of how Bond was movied-up was the creation of the Bond glamour, which includes the matinee idol good looks, and I don’t think anyone can be blamed, especially old time fans, for missing that cue that the series fed to them.
The differences between the literary and cinematic versions of Bond have provoked a lot of comment with various people trying to claim credit for the "lightening" of the Bond character for the cinema. These have included Terence Young and Diane Cilento, while the authors of Martinis, Girls And Guns trace the origins of film-Bond to Fleming's own lightening of the character in GF. It would be untrue to say that the literary Bond never cracks a joke- he just doesn't do it as often or as obviously as he does onscreen. What the films have done, and totally correctly IMHO, is to play up certain aspects of the character while downplaying others. A book can tell you, while a film has to show you.
Totally agree that what they’ve done in terms of screen treatment was necessary to which credit to the series’ enduring appeal belongs. In short of reading that book, I do personally credit Terrence Young with that stroke of genius and agree with what someone in the DVD extras said that TY was Bond. As far as the book vs. film tension, I think TD made a valiant attempt to “act out” much of the internalized aspects of Lit. Bond, exemplified by his (sometimes over) animated facial emoting.
I don’t think Bond was deathly serious. He certainly had a lot of dark humor, was jovial when with colleagues and at times was sarcastically absurd (note his taunts to Blofeld at the end of YOLT) but his humor was no where as affably demonstrated as the screen, nor would you have seen him as sassy or witty as Connery delivered it. On the “lightening up” of GF the novel (again, since I haven’t read i]Martinis, Girls And Guns[/i], since it was written around 1958, it could may have indeed been Fleming’s interest in getting his novels brought to the screen, but regardless, it was a far from perfect piece of literature.
I like TD very much, he tried hard to capture the Bond of the books - but the scripts gave his interpretation little support. For some reason though I don't see TD in CR'06 even if he were 20 years younger .... can't say why.
While OHMSS may have been the most faithful screenplay, in the end, I think Peter Hunt found presenting the core "love story" was both outside of his skill as a director, not part of EON's desire for a great action movie, and way beyond the capability of his leading man. So here was an instance where the Bond actors may have had the right looks, but ultimately failed in the effort to present credible characters.
I agree about TD’s scripts. It was the unfortunate error to bank of past successes and critical contributions of Richard Maibaum, plus Cubby and Michael’s safe stance on the EON formula did not leave room for innovation that could have brought TD’s Bond to new heights of excellence. As far as TD in CR, I think the problem with that is TD as we saw him was Bond at his penultimate, in terms of the general time and setting for the novels, even with the literary CR in which Bond debuts but is by no means green except maybe in love. TD would have been too jaded IMO even as a youngster, however to effectively interpret CR the way they did last year. One of the two main qualms I had with TD is his lack of comfort of a privileged lifestyle, and the other was his action scenes IMO due to his reliance on his stage training; I think these could have been mitigated, however, by good direction and choreography, but those are just technical details.
Lastly, with OHMSS, Hunt did borrow his approach from Hitchcock by treating his lead like cattle. Maybe it was a form of Svengali conceit on his part, thinking that excellence can be achieved with the right amount of artistic dexterity, and ultimately he overextended himself for the challenge as you mentioned; but nonetheless, managing to pull of that production was pretty impressive overall.
"...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.....
Craig being good looking enough to be Bond?
Well, almost every woman I've come across that I've spoke about Bond with think that Daniel Craig is extremely good looking, so I think he'll be sucessful in the looks department personally.
Supes, I think you're mixing your arguments a bit: EON's Bond DN to about TSWLM did present a movied-up (increasingly so) Bond, sure. But EON's Bond post-TSWLM stretched that even farther IMO… I do think CR fits best next to, say, TB and that era more than anything in the last 30 or so years.
With that though, let’s recognize what movie Bond for what he is and what he’s always been irregardless of that worsening you pinpointed at mid TSWLM, since the camp has always been there from the get go, and to further say he’s finally returned to his roots IMO is really just short of pretending about something that never was.
Look again, supes. CR hearkens back to Bond's mid 60s movie roots in my post, not "something that never was." I also disagree that DN was quite as moviefied as you make it out to be, certainly not as much as later Bonds IMO. Again, there are degrees for me even within movie Bond (as separate from Fleming Bond) that apparently don't exist for you, so be it I guess. Up until TSWLM, EON riffed on Fleming's Bond--they cartooned him at times, even spoofed him a bit, but it wasn't until the late 70s EON started riffing on it's own version of Bond, and that for me is the defining distinction. CR is the first Bond film since OMHSS to embrace that much Fleming. It's a welcome change of EON's tradition, lol.
Comments
Agreed. And why I didn't bother with the internet forums until after he was ousted, didn't see the point in dropping eggs on the heads of those enjoying Brosnan/Bond. But the transistion to Craig was ugly on the boards, as Alex pointed out. Interesting that the folks who were most into the verbal abuse re Craig/Craig supporters are not around much anymore, the regulars from that time who are still posting I don't remember as being in attack-mode back then, not like those who have vanished. Maybe one day they'll get a new Bond they like?
We are in agreement on that, sir! {[]
So some fans don't think Craig looks like James Bond just as some fans thought Brosnan was a bit bland and so on...
I would hope that everyone would post regardless of whether or not they're satisfied with the current state of Bond. Everyone has so much to offer; I like hearing from members of all perspectives.
I'm not trying to drop eggs on anyone's head. I would hope that everyone has strong enough convictions that they'll continue to love Craig's Bond no matter what I say.
If you want to live in a world like the one highhopes jokingly described earlier, then maybe you have come to the wrong place.
-Roger Moore
Would never think that of you, Tee. Your sarcasm always comes off as pretty playful, can't think of when it struck me as a door-slam. More inviting, like. {[]
Or whomever no matter what anyone says, sure. And, as present company attests, many do and can converse about it just fine.
Not getting this comment, but 3 out 4 ain't bad. {[] I do appreciate that the culture of Craig-hate is now for all intents and purposes gone from the Bond boards these days, and that there's room for fans of all the Bonds now.
Fair enough. You certainly would have been welcome to, had you been motivated.
Blast! I'll have to try harder next time.
In all seriousness, I'm glad we understand each other blue. Afterall, I'm here to make friends, not enemies. {[]
Absolutely!
HH shares some of his religious aspirations on page 2. He has high hopes indeed.
By all means I too am a fan of all the Bonds. But somebody's got to be last on my list of favorites. And that just happens to be Craig at the moment.
-Roger Moore
And that's fine. To tell the truth, as much as I enjoyed Craig in the role, there probably isn't an actor mentioned on this thread that I wouldn't have enjoyed as Bond in Casino Royale. I'm not sure I would have enjoyed DAD or the Moore Bonds anymore with Craig in them. For me, the real meaning of Casino Royale is that there is a new, less cartoonish, formulaic Bond film out there that actually requires an actor, not just a well-stuffed tuxedo. When Craig's tenure is finished, EON is welcome to go back to the dark-haired, prettier type -- but the guy has to be able to act and the film has to require acting. I want a real guy -- relatively speaking -- not a superhero.
I don't understand how fans can reject DC, but embrace Roger Moore with his red hair, crossed eye and Marilyn Monroe mole?
The improvements in charecter, dialog and return to a Fleming plot in CR'06 was such an improvement over the last 17 or so films, we should just be thankful for that.
I find DC to be a fine incarnation of James Bond of 2006. A former SAS type with an easy smile and expensive watch. Driven by an unhappy childhood to be single minded and totally devoted to his crusade to protect Queen and Country. I am not sure that any of the previous Bond's are right for the new century. Craig is!
Something tells me that if the producers went back to something "hairy" as Craig Freguson so cleverly put it, there would be an equal amout of consternation.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Hey there HH, seems you might have been subconsciously inspired by a greeting card you recently received, " ... the real meaning of Casino Royale ... "
To answer the question of this post, no, I no longer have doubts that DC made CR/Bond his own, not counting the film's success and similar prospects for the next installments.
However, I sit with Tee Hee in terms of preference; though Craig (eventually) made the cut for me, I don't regard him as the Bond messiah and particularly so for literary Bond standards since "purists" are hailing him as such. What keeps me from joining that mindset is actually...well, that diabolical genius, Ian Fleming and his manipulative use of words that seared into my tragically conventional imagination, very defining traits of the Bond character ...and some of you folks know which of those I have in mind.
Interestingly enough since this naturally leads to looking at the cinematic Bond tradition, credit to its reinvigoration is being given to the popular "literary Bond argument" that Craig is said to have resurrected in spades. Ironically, that argument is generally played out to render practically the bulk of series prior as sadly inferior. Again, I actually have to agree with HH on this and appreciate the unique texture the series has taken in its entirety.
Interesting you brought up AVTAK, Blue, which my kid was watching last night on DVD; Since I really have little, real initiative to go pop in a Bond DVD when I actually get an urging to do so, I watched a little and would have finished if I weren't so tired. I belabored the point how snowboarding was still considered at that time an aberation to winter sports, and stressed how Commies were just as cool, interesting and treatening villains as Nazis. Yes, at the time AVTAK was released, I was sorely aware of how poor it was in many many areas (especially so as I just began reading the books), but still I found myself stoked when the first commercial previews came out in Spring 1985, and I watched it at least 6 times at the theater during that summer. I suppose that save for the whole letdown I had regarding DC's announcement, in the end I came around because like AVTAK, CR was a Bond film!
The way I see it, DC lacks the sophistication that IMO is a cinematic prerequisite to the character (how else can you effectively communicate that internalized trait in a visual medium?), and RM was in desperate need for the hard-edged, piratical quality that rounded up the Bond persona and if only they can lend their best traits to one another like the making of a Reeses chocolate bar, but with some dark hair thrown in...
As a side, before seeing my son watching AVTAK, an hour before I told my wife I had that hankering for a Bond movie and she said, "OK, what about CR?" and I said "Ok, after the news," underestimating the realities of being middle aged
Personally I thought some of the casino scenes in CR displayed Bond at his most sophsticated ever, also his scenes with Solange, I was really caught off guard by the bungalow scene paerticularly, wasn't expecting that level of sophistication in a Bond seduction scene at all. Perhaps we have different expectations as to what sophisticated is? Ah viva le differance yet again.
I suppose it is how you interpret that.
I find Daniel Craig, the man, incredibly sophisticated. Hes been on numerous chat shows and radio interviews over here due to the Golden Compass and he is more like Bond in real life then many before him. He appears on Parkinson in a grey double breasted suit ala Goldfinger and pulls it off, he answers wittily the questions thrown at him during a radio interview. Where did this non-sophistication come from?
And the role?
Well, CR is Bond learning to be sophisticted. In this one he's referred to as ex-SAS. One of those men, as Vesper says, who buy rolex watches to look more stylish. As CR is a film about Bonds metamorphosis. In this one he learns to love the things we love him for - Aston Martin, dinner jacket, vodka martini - his rough edges are about to be shorn off. That is the point of CR.
I found DCs gaming table scenes with Le Chiffre very stylish. In fact he makes a new trend when ordering the Vodka martini so much that the table follows him. Its obvious that he is the style leader around the green baize table.
That may define Craigs 007. The outward showings of style hiding the beast within. Certainly thats more impressive then a "greatest hits" package like Brosnan.
Though I haven't seen these interviews myself, I don't doubt your observations are spot on. I do agree Craig is intelligent, articulated and most importantly, unassuming, just as someone like Johnny Depp, Mike Myers and Bill Murray, who despite their personas actually have something to say. Then, as Loeffs mentioned, there's Roger Moore who in real life exudes such genuine class that transcends any of his roles, that being the sum of his natural temperament, demeanor, grace and decency. As much as these are rare and valuable qualities, though, let's not forget that what is ultimately presented on screen is distinct from any of that, just as Mike Myers will show you in his Austin Powers movies.
Noel Coward epitomized style, elegance and good taste but that doesn't equate him with the likes of Bond, at least not in the cinematic tradition established by Connery. But, what exactly was that "tradition?" After watching the OHMSS extra features, it's interesting how people initially determined Lazenby, a male model, as being suitable for the part because he "certainly looked like James Bond." Personally I instantly got what they were conceptually implying. However, because GL and SC aren't twins, I take that to mean a conceptual "look" and essence to the character that Connery inadvertently created, which has then served as the template for future Bonds (though to a limit w/Dalton, and more so w/Craig). Although I accept Craig in the role, it's certainly not according to the series' self-established standard/tradition, pre-CR considering that w/CR, for the most part that was thrown out the window (and IMO it wasn't a totally bad thing.)
Yes, I understand that, but you are implying that explains why there's an apparent lack of sophistication in the character and/or Craig's screen persona, yet you contradict yourself in your following points, that basically Craig is not at all lacking in these qualities.
I'm not sure how the Craig vs. Brosnan issue is specifically relevant in this discussion as it obviously is for you, since I was never of the persuation of Brosnan as the only, or best alternative for CR. Wasn't it Moore who I earlier brought up in contrast? In terms of my own preferences, however, you might as well broaden the opposition to "anyone and everyone else better suited for the role" vs. Craig. But hey, give me credit for accepting the situation and trying to make the most out of it.
I think you need to distinguish between how a role is written to convey specific traits, and the actual results. GE's script for example, belabored throughout the story to reinforce how Bond was reckless with vehicles, irreverent, proceeds too intiuitively, lacks objectivity, etc. Those things, along with the Rolex-looking Omega and other "Bondian" personal effects in the end are props, just as a Bentley or Batmobile was for Michael Keaton. If you personally concluded that Craig was a trend setter, then the film-makers accomplished their objective in convincing at least one viewer (and of course countless more) what they intended to get across. To me, the dressing in CR served to establish those particular character traits, but just as a 57-year old Roger Moore is supposed to be an elite, lethal instrument of the British Government that goes around wupping a lot of a**. That however, doesn't mean I was completely sold, nor does it in CR automatically bestows style and good taste to Craig's Bond when a group of well-funded yet deviant gamblers copycat his drink order.
Both the Vesper (Bond Girl) and Bond charecters are written much differently for Casino Royale than they were for any previous film. Vesper is the intelluctal equal of Bond and a stronger person than any previous Bond girl. She can look oo7 straight in the eyes and say "No" and that attracts and confounds both the audiance and Bond. Vesper's strength initially sparks Bond's interest, but it is her vulnerability that finally hooks Bond, when he realises how deeply the violence of his job affects Vesper. She represents for Bond a "last chance" to live a clean life.
Bond in CR'06 is not the brilliant genius of previous incarnations. He is tough and single minded, but capable of getting carried away and making really stupid decisions - killiing Mollacka, revealing his identity to LeChiffre. As a new double-o he is not a sophisticated agent - that is not so say he doesn't know about the more stylish things in life - like cars and martini's. The new Bond is on his way to becoming the slick "oo" presented as a "fait accompli" in previous films
Craig was able to project the physically tough Bond and show an emotional element that was never required of a previous Bond - except poor Lazenby, whose noble attempt was thrawted by a script that was long on action and pitiously short on emotion.
Bond 21 was a real departure for the series, and Craig's looks are less the issue than the charecter driven story - something that hasn't really been seen before in the Bond films. A very welcome change!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Very much disagree: they threw out 30+ years of hollow cliche Bond, and went back to the traditional Bond (ie 60s) IMO. The "standard" Bond went off the rails at some point during TSWLM IMHO, and never fully regained it's prominence till Craig/CR. Post-TSWLM, I don't see much sophistication in Bond at all, just a lot of aping behavior that comes across as shallow and crass. JMHO.
But don't you think that the "shallow and crass" began from Dr. No? Who actually talks, walks and acts like that in real life? It's all part of the screen fantasy created, which arguably is the central element that from that point propelled Bond's appeal that endures to this day.
As far as aping, don't you think that happens when they have females giving Bond the lingering dreamy ogling looks, or whenever Bond wears a tuxedo? Given the environment and clientelle of the Montenegro casino to make a point, LC was the most appropriately dressed and having everyone else in a tux is obviously contrived to allow Bond to wear his, just as it obviously was the case in the tux scenes in AVTAK, TLD, TWINE, etc.
I think the OHMSS script was the brilliant fruition of reconciling the series standards with the added consideration of the source story (as well as Fleming's body of work). However, to a literary idealist which I assume you to be, OHMSS in the end is a mediocre compromise. I however, accept it for reasons said.
On going literary, I think Dalton captured enough of the source (if not completely) to deem him successful in nailing it, but too much so to his detriment; what many overlook, including the so called "purists" is that the literary Bond wouldn't prove all that interesting and riveting on screen, which is something the producers recognized and remedied at the very begining.
To me, that's the great paradox, sorting out the good and bad of both the films and their literary source and reconciling that tension. Craig/CR successfully distilled the key, enduring elements of the source, the soul so to speak, and interpreted these in a visually stylish product. However, that brings us to the core of this paradox, in that the driving force and inspiration for the CR "departure," is the very same zeal and fascination for the Fleming material that (at least) for an enthusiast like myself, leaves me longing for a fair approximation of the character that Fleming impressed onto the imagination; and unfortunately, much of that is too indelible and non-negotiable to give assent.
Story driven, yes, but a dynamic, non-conventional Bond does not automatically equate with the "real" Bond. What you actually have is something more closer to Jason Bourne, but with just enough stylistic accents to call it Bond as some of the CR proponents argue. If you really want to make something distinctively Bond, but with that "edge," I'd again go back to the source and make a more meaningful look at the essence and not just do a lazy reinvention of the Bond charm, wit, irreverence, etc. only to then call that "character driven." Again, that doesn't prevent me from appreciating DC/CR; its just that I don't think it's "all that."
You have pointed out the essential conflict, reconciling Fleming's Bond with the Eon Bond. You are very correct that EON saw early on that the literary fellow was a self obsessed snob, and Young and Connery created a clever - distinct film hero, not seen before.
I am a bigger lover of the Fleming novels, and find them far better than any of the films. So the best one can hope for in the end is the presenation of some key Fleming's elements in any Bond film. The further Eon deviated from Fleming, the worse it got (IMHO). I actually find the old "Danger Man" series closer to the spirit of Fleming than anything EON ever made.
I like TD very much, he tried hard to capture the Bond of the books - but the scripts gave his interpetation little support. For some reason though I don't see TD in CR'06 even if he were 20 years younger .... can't say why.
I know that Bond will never be made properly as a period piece with all the novels filmed in order - a project someone may undertake in fifty years or so. For me just seeing more of Fleming's charecter development realised on screen is enough - it transcends the "look" of the actors involved.
While OHMSS may have been the most faithful screenplay, in the end, I think Peter Hunt found presenting the core "love story" was both outside of his skill as a director, not part of EON's desire for a great action movie, and way beyond the capability of his leading man. So here was an instance where the Bond actors may have had the right looks, but ultimately failed in the effort to present credible charecters.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
This is debatable; the differences between the literary and cinematic versions of Bond have provoked a lot of comment with various people trying to claim credit for the "lightening" of the Bond character for the cinema. These have included Terence Young and Diane Cilento, while the authors of Martinis, Girls And Guns trace the origins of film-Bond to Fleming's own lightening of the character in GF. It would be untrue to say that the literary Bond never cracks a joke- he just doesn't do it as often or as obviously as he does onscreen. What the films have done, and totally correctly IMHO, is to play up certain aspects of the character while downplaying others. A book can tell you, while a film has to show you.
There's stretching Fleming, then there's the break; IMO the break came halfway through TSWLM. CR brought Bond back to that first 10 or so year stretch of EON's Bond IMO, and I think that's what a lot of Bond fans are reacting to. Some fans don't think EON ever really jumped the rails, that movie Bond simply evolved through a number of acceptable (more or less) incarnations. And that's fine. I lost the series (or it lost me...?) when it started eating itself self-consciously, late 70s (although YOLT did that, as DAF did outright spoof Bond, arguably), and assumed I'd be fine with what they regurgitated up. I wasn't, haven't been, and am really geeked about the reboot/Craig. It's Bond like it should be IMO. But yeah, to each his or her own. Craig's not it for you, so be it. I do thin CR fits best next to, say, TB and that era more than anything in the last 30 or so years.
Yeah, you do get where I’m coming from. Once you heard the offbeat “radio” sounds in the beginning of DN, and saw the larger than life, expressionist sets, you knew you stepped into spy fantasy land and even with CR decades later, Bond is still there in some measure. You’re correct to place the demarcation line at TB, since that was when the series began to suffer from its own success by upping the ante at the expense of creative honesty. With that though, let’s recognize what movie Bond for what he is and what he’s always been irregardless of that worsening you pinpointed at mid TSWLM, since the camp has always been there from the get go, and to further say he’s finally returned to his roots IMO is really just short of pretending about something that never was. But come on, a direct result of how Bond was movied-up was the creation of the Bond glamour, which includes the matinee idol good looks, and I don’t think anyone can be blamed, especially old time fans, for missing that cue that the series fed to them.
Totally agree that what they’ve done in terms of screen treatment was necessary to which credit to the series’ enduring appeal belongs. In short of reading that book, I do personally credit Terrence Young with that stroke of genius and agree with what someone in the DVD extras said that TY was Bond. As far as the book vs. film tension, I think TD made a valiant attempt to “act out” much of the internalized aspects of Lit. Bond, exemplified by his (sometimes over) animated facial emoting.
I don’t think Bond was deathly serious. He certainly had a lot of dark humor, was jovial when with colleagues and at times was sarcastically absurd (note his taunts to Blofeld at the end of YOLT) but his humor was no where as affably demonstrated as the screen, nor would you have seen him as sassy or witty as Connery delivered it. On the “lightening up” of GF the novel (again, since I haven’t read i]Martinis, Girls And Guns[/i], since it was written around 1958, it could may have indeed been Fleming’s interest in getting his novels brought to the screen, but regardless, it was a far from perfect piece of literature.
I agree about TD’s scripts. It was the unfortunate error to bank of past successes and critical contributions of Richard Maibaum, plus Cubby and Michael’s safe stance on the EON formula did not leave room for innovation that could have brought TD’s Bond to new heights of excellence. As far as TD in CR, I think the problem with that is TD as we saw him was Bond at his penultimate, in terms of the general time and setting for the novels, even with the literary CR in which Bond debuts but is by no means green except maybe in love. TD would have been too jaded IMO even as a youngster, however to effectively interpret CR the way they did last year. One of the two main qualms I had with TD is his lack of comfort of a privileged lifestyle, and the other was his action scenes IMO due to his reliance on his stage training; I think these could have been mitigated, however, by good direction and choreography, but those are just technical details.
Lastly, with OHMSS, Hunt did borrow his approach from Hitchcock by treating his lead like cattle. Maybe it was a form of Svengali conceit on his part, thinking that excellence can be achieved with the right amount of artistic dexterity, and ultimately he overextended himself for the challenge as you mentioned; but nonetheless, managing to pull of that production was pretty impressive overall.
Well, almost every woman I've come across that I've spoke about Bond with think that Daniel Craig is extremely good looking, so I think he'll be sucessful in the looks department personally.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby