The Craig Referendum
Loeffelholz
The United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
No, this isn't about a recently-discovered unpublished Robert Ludlum novel 
I often think about the immediate aftermath of CR's release. A person whom I once conversed with on these very forums (now no doubt making new friends elsewhere!) stridently maintained that the second film would tell the tale on Daniel Craig---a referendum, as it were.
CR succeeded, he said, because audiences were curious about the use of Ian Fleming's final untapped book title, the hotly-debated 'reboot' of the franchise...and about the even more controversial new leading man. The sophomore effort, he postulated, would fail without the afore-detailed novelty factors, and Craig would be tossed into the Lazenby-Dalton Memorial Discard Bin, yet another historical Bond-curiosity, relegated to secondary forum threads (and the hearts of a precious few True Believers).
With QoS, Eon upped the ante by throwing an art-house director (Marc Forster) to the wolves, importing Bourne-man Dan Bradley for the 2nd Unit/stunt work, rewriting the strike-affected script on the fly...and editing the action with a buzz-saw.
Some Bond fans praised; seemingly more howled, but---except for those who've despised Craig-As-Bond from the outset---(Formerly) Poor DannyTM seems (like Bond himself) to have survived two Bond films relatively unscathed (at least by critics), and appears to be enjoying some degree of acceptance by general audiences.
The question, then, would be: How much acceptance? Box office notwithstanding (we all know the numbers), where does Craig stand with Bond fans...and how well is he poised for whatever is left (One more? Two? Five? :v
) of his Bond tenure?
[EDIT: Mods...if you think this works better in the Bond Film forum, please feel free to move it.]
I often think about the immediate aftermath of CR's release. A person whom I once conversed with on these very forums (now no doubt making new friends elsewhere!) stridently maintained that the second film would tell the tale on Daniel Craig---a referendum, as it were.
CR succeeded, he said, because audiences were curious about the use of Ian Fleming's final untapped book title, the hotly-debated 'reboot' of the franchise...and about the even more controversial new leading man. The sophomore effort, he postulated, would fail without the afore-detailed novelty factors, and Craig would be tossed into the Lazenby-Dalton Memorial Discard Bin, yet another historical Bond-curiosity, relegated to secondary forum threads (and the hearts of a precious few True Believers).
With QoS, Eon upped the ante by throwing an art-house director (Marc Forster) to the wolves, importing Bourne-man Dan Bradley for the 2nd Unit/stunt work, rewriting the strike-affected script on the fly...and editing the action with a buzz-saw.
Some Bond fans praised; seemingly more howled, but---except for those who've despised Craig-As-Bond from the outset---(Formerly) Poor DannyTM seems (like Bond himself) to have survived two Bond films relatively unscathed (at least by critics), and appears to be enjoying some degree of acceptance by general audiences.
The question, then, would be: How much acceptance? Box office notwithstanding (we all know the numbers), where does Craig stand with Bond fans...and how well is he poised for whatever is left (One more? Two? Five? :v
) of his Bond tenure?[EDIT: Mods...if you think this works better in the Bond Film forum, please feel free to move it.]
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
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
He certainly has the acting chops for the role, and his handling of the physical stuff has dispelled my (initial) doubts of his being cast in the first place.
My thoughts: Daniel Craig has been cast as Bond; either we accept it or stop complaining and move on.
I think he'll do another two films and then controversially hang up his tuxedo.
I've said this elsewhere, but I'd like #23 (whatever else it does) to go the other direction, in terms of womanizing---rather than one or two, how about shooting for six? A nice round number...there are plenty of ways in which to couch this. Perhaps it's just Bond's way of moving on. Tie it in with the character's 'live for today' ethos, with drink, fine food and some fastidiousness, and Bond becomes a more fully realized character. Some will disagree with this, but I wouldn't mind a Sir James Moloney describing Bond's sexual escapades (perhaps to a highly disapproving M) as a coping mechanism...although, admittedly, such 'on the nose' exposition doesn't seem to be the current style.
Whatever they decide, they'd better keep the character 'moving forward' somehow, or I think Craig will lose interest. Unlike other actors, I doubt he will hang around and do several cookie-cutter formula pieces.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Unless the producers diecide to start re-making the books (hopefully in order) I think only DC's acting will keep the franchise alive, and Bond will peter out like the "Die Hard" movies. Eon should have learned this lesson already, having driven the franchise right to the wall with the ugly "Die Another Day". Even Wilson admitted they had dropped Bond for a "Jinx" sequel!
Right now Craig is carrying the whole load, and that has to take it's toll. I think he works very well as Bond and has shown a Dalton-like devotion to the charecter - if not the source novels.
Without reliance on Fleming's imagination and the path he started, Bond is just another action hero. Because Bond is a product of Fleming, he has limits. The trick is to keep him fresh with new direction and talent, EON has shown they can do it with CR. While QOS is for me a relative success, I am not really interested in seeing more Brosnanish story lines invented by the team of Purvis and Wade, who long ago should have been handed walking papers.
Craig passed the test with CR, he has earned bragging rights with QOS. DC is the right Bond for this time period, but it will take more than the right Bond, as proven by YOLT, DAF, DAD and on and on ......
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
I'm certainly not advocating a return to Brosnan-style, 'check off the formula boxes' entries. While those were fun and have their devotees, Craig stands ready to do other, very Fleming, things other Bonds could never do: get his pinky finger broken in the first or second act, for instance, and spend the rest of the picture with his finger in a splint. Or the blowtorch and steam-hose from the MR novel...even escaping from an exploding castle via helium balloon, as in YOLT :v Moreover, he's proven that people will pay to watch him do it... :007)
All of this can be delivered within the time-tested (and quite flexible) framework for this remarkable character---while delivering original stories and giving us a dash (here or there) of what distinguishes 007 from everyone else on film.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
As a cash cow Bond WILL be ridden into the future as far as possible. I'd agree that the old boy still has cinematic potential even outside the Fleming framework.
I consider myself a true Bond fan, having held with him since his screen debut. It took years of Bondian abuse and DAD to drive me from the theatres (DAD was the first oo7 movie I did not see first run).
Still overall I think the producers ablity to produce a viable and unqiue product - worthy of Fleming and Bond is diminished. If they loose their way again the franchise can falter and fail - and this time it may not rake in the $$$$$.
I guess I am too much a Flemingist, to see Bond as a "success" in endless action senarios outside of the original source. For me it will take more than a Walther PPK and an Aston-Martin to have "James Bond" on the screen.
Fleming was the genius behind this series. There is still plenty of untapped life in the novels - as proven by CR'06. This is a case where we can have our cake AND eat it. IMO this is something better to wish for than a DAD remake with Daniel Craig!
I think that EON does listen to the fans to some extent. To that extent, I think it makes sense to argue and hope for a return to the novels as script sources!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Well...that's the first time I've been accused of that...(not)
There's always that risk, of course. Due diligence from the custodians of this great property is essential. The good news is that, in my opinion, they've got the right lead actor at the moment.
Well, sure. The essence of Bond---the man, the character---is crucial. Many of those who dislike QoS feel that he's not in the film. I disagree. The very fact that there seems such divergence on what constitutes this is a fundamental strength of the series. As disparate elements of fandom are courted and repelled, new audience replaces that which is lost.
Thankfully, no one on this thread is advocating that. I think the horizon is rich with possibilities---even if one merely 'cherry-picks' bits of Fleming (as I suggested above) to enrich an original tale.
I wouldn't expect this unless (or until) the property changes owners.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Now, you want to make a case for there not being much EON in QOS, at least the traditional-Bonded EON, I'll gladly co-sign to that.
As for the next one, I kinda hope they don't revert back, even a bit. Go for the sex, you bet, but keep things rolling for Bond as they've started with the reboot, there's a lot there to explore that's previously been sidestepped. I would think the BO returns would convince them of that if nothing else.
Viva Fleming's Bond! {:)
That a woman was so instrumental in choosing him for the part also boded well -- what men might consider attractive for women is often not the same thing as what women consider attractive for women -- and the fact that Craig was more classically and ruggedly handsome than plastic 80s and 90s mannequin-esque pretty made him right for the role. That he was a bonafide actor, to boot, also suggested he would bring a dimension to the role we hadn't seen in a while. Watching him succeed as Bond has been an affirmation.
The films are definitely more Fleming-like in attitude and characterization, though I wonder if the author would be bemused by all of the attention given to the creation. At the risk of not having read anything in a little while on Fleming, I recall his having written the books as something of a lark, more a hobby than any serious attempt at great literature of any kind. While his spy rose to the top of the ranks in worldwide popularity, it would be hard to say that Bond is a remarkably original conception. Fleming himself acknowledged fictional characters like Bulldog Drummond, but one can see the antecedents of Bond in any number of projects, from films like "Notorious" and "13 Rue Madeleine" to other books, including "The Prisoner of Zenda" and the Jean Bruce French series about secret agent "OSS 117," which predated Fleming's own attempts.
The next Bond film should be much closer to a classic 007 film than these two, which is a wise course of action. Not only does it follow the Connery Bonds in staying relatively faithful to Fleming for two films before going to extremes, but it also gives fans a chance to get used to Craig as Bond before attempts to focus on character give inevitably away to the formula, bigger special effects, more outlandish villains, and a plot that takes precedence over Bond as a man. We'll be able to enjoy the fun while also coasting along with our memories of Bond, the man, as opposed to Bond, the game piece on screen.
Absolute rubbish. I liked QoS, I like Craig's interpretation of Bond, I support the direction the films have taken. But QoS is the most Flemingesque? Boondocks. Firstly, From Russia With Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service will never be beaten because both are the novel put on the screen. There are variations in both, but both films drip Fleming. There isn't a single scene in QoS which compares with Tania and Klebb's first meeting, or Bond and Draco discussing Tracy, and they are Fleming scenes made flesh.
Secondly, Fleming's Bond is not passionate, emotive or, indeed, capable of human emotion. Bond is utterly betrayed by Vesper in the novel of CR (and remember that her betrayal in the novel is completely cold - there is no "she did it to save you James" in the book - she is a traitor through and through). He loves her completely, wants to marry her, and she turns out to be a liar and a hysteric. Bond closes himself off and doesn't think of her any more (apart from a mention in OHMSS which hints at the way he puts his passions in separate compartments to be brought out when necessary). When he returns in Live And Let Die, there is only the merest hint of a mention of the previous novel, and 007 is much as he was at the start of CR. Bond as a passionate emotive being is a concept of the filmmakers: Fleming's Bond is quite literally a blunt instrument, in that he is a blank canvas for the reader to project upon. QoS (and, to a different extent, LTK, TWINE, and DAD) present a Bond who will allow emotions to influence his judgement, and to take precedence over his patriotic duty. Not Fleming. The most Flemingesque moment for Bond in QoS is the moment we all cheer at: when he tells M that he was always an agent first, and literally throws away his emotional attachment to Vesper. That's our Bond!
Feeling Signet paperbacks is not feeling Bond; 007 was produced for hardbacked Jonathan Cape, not lurid pulp fiction. Dalton's Bond is a cold, hard, sometimes emotive but mostly tightly wound ball of fury; he is a killer who keeps his passions locked in a box, and is more Fleming than Craig is, and more Fleming than Brosnan was. Craig is brilliant at what he does, and he is great as Bond, and he is a different Bond, in the same way that Roger Moore is a different Bond: they are shades on a colour strip of character.
As for the topic at large, boondocks again: "referendum on Craig" - rubbish. The killer here is the format, is the franchise, is the world of 007. A BOND MOVIE is an event; no man is greater than Bond, no man can destroy or resurrect the format. If Bond 21 had been space satellites destroying the earth with their laser nuclear meltdown beam and Pierce Brosnan leaping off waterfalls to stop it, it would have been a success. The power of Bond has nothing to do with Sean or George or Roger or Timothy or Pierce or Daniel - they are figurines. The ultimate power is Eon, and they have been in "the business" long enough to follow Eliott Carver's maxim - give the public what they want. Not one cinema goer bought a ticket for QoS by saying "can I have a ticket to that new Daniel Craig movie?". I like Daniel Craig and I like his Bond and I like his Bond films, but he is nothing to do with the direction of the films. If you applaud QoS, applaud Mickey and Babs - the producers who also made The Reviled Die Another DayTM.
@merseytart
Again, the ONLY fault I find in QOS is that lack of Fleming. This film has a lot going for it, but for me it works as "CR'06 Part Deux".
As stated above Fleming carried on without significent reference to "Casino Royale" in "Live and Let Die". I like that, since real life simply does not present us with an opportunity to resolve all the issues we are confronted with. QOS is a good resolution to the events of CR'06, but hardly a resolution that was needed to move Bond forward as a "rebooted" charecter.
From the outset EON monkeyed with the Bond charecter - adding humour, more snobbery and alot more sex. All that sold the series to the public and helped make it the overwhelming success it became.
But EON really exhausted that charecter, and the "Big Red Explosions",goofy gadjets and girls named "Christmas". As the series strayed further and further out into the absurdity of "Moonraker" and "DAD" little was left of the original Bond or Ian Fleming. In truth what little bits of Fleming that were included in such films as "FYEO" are the only bits worth watching.
I think at this point in time, with the sucessful reboot - a serious adaptation of "Casino Royale" that the "new" Bond be held to the unexplored standard created by Fleming. We need only look back to "Big Tam's" films to see that no matter how good an actor you are - one man's charm cannot save drivel.
We all want Bond to be sucessful. I accept that the Fleming I long to see on screen may not appear in my lifetime. But unless the producers get it together and realize that the Fleming inspired script AND the fine acting of DC were equally responsible for the success of CR'06, the next film can only be a return to the "sucessful" formula that ended with "DAD".
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
I don't know if it's "often" or more like 24/7
If not with Bond 23, it's a matter of time, but time will come... Just as Brosnan has easily become a distant memory among today's viewer's, that is, if they've even viewed him as Bond before, I'm sure DC will earn his hallmark in Bond history as yesterday's novelty in light of the "new" Bond of that moment. Don't mistake this as an anti DC rant, but more like a dose of reality as it applies universally to all things Bond (except Sean Connery
They will bring on some two bit pretty boy to carry on the series for a while and peeve a lot of people off with camp productions for two or three films until reality sets back in...or they decide to pick up a Jinx sequel.
Maybe that last part was a little harsh, but I stand behind the previous statement about three films for Craig then out (maybe he'd do four, but I doubt it).
Totally agree. EON twisted up a successful variation of Fleming's character from the get-go, and piled on as audiences responded to those variations to the point that - now - we can actually have a discussion about what equals Fleming's Bond, where does EON's Bond end/begin, how does a guy like Craig get away with calling himself Bond, etc. Bond has become broad enough to accommodate all of these facets under discussion, and likely even more down the road.
As for 23, I see a tweak to the new improved successful formula rather than a reverting back to a more familiarly Bond formula. But that's what makes this Bond so fun right now, successful + Flemingesque. Can't wait to see what they do next (and if I'm let down in my expectations oh well, not like I'm not used to it with Bond
One of the best posts I ever read. {[]
Where have I read the premise, that the first 6 or so novels after CR are all about Bond seeking revenge against SMERSH, the agency responsible for the death of Vesper, Bond's first love? Talk about a romantic motivation for the series.
(and am I the only one getting the irony of the fluffy-Bond crew defending Fleming's creation as the ultimate blunt weapon killing machine???)
Speak for yourself, my twisted friend
Yes, yes. Sure didn't see that coming :x
Of course. Can't tolerate that fanboy enthusiasm
What you've just seen, folks, is the wild Superado---fansitis drive-byis erectus---in his natural habitat. He may never stop by this particular location again, but note the quick 'hiking' of the leg, a marking of the territory, if you will, before he moves on.
Remarkable!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Duly noted for the record; thanks JSW! {[]
In the highly unlikely event I ever converse again with the departed (banned) member who originally said so, back in 2006 on these very boards, I'll be sure to pass your verdict along B-) Meanwhile, I'll just silently thank him for the thread -{ (Who says you have to stop contributing when they kick you out??)
[cue applause]
Cheers to Mickey and Babs! {[] {[] {[]
P.S. {[] {[] {[]
P.P.S. {[] {[] {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
EON has earned lots of deserved applause over the years, for trying different things with Bond, to varying degrees of success. Some count LTK (Dalton's goofy grin included) high on that success arc, I prefer the more thrilling QOS (to some, "rubbish" apparently). But yes, applause all around for aim, though mixed marks for follow-through from just about everybody (well obviously
Quite happy with the voice of the BO singing so very loudly for my "rubbish" Bond.
Moreover, I know more than a few women who never would have dreamed of purchasing a ticket for a Bond film who nonetheless have gone to both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace simply because Craig is in it. They have latched on to not just Craig the actor but Craig as Bond in a way that is analogous to how many previous fans, mostly men by my experience, latched on to Connery as Bond. And some of them have said they finally "get it" in terms of why the character is so popular. So, while somebody ultimately gets billing as primarily responsible for a film working or not working, Craig is instrumental to the equation, both in his influence on the production and in drawing in audiences that heretofore would have avoided James Bond films like the proverbial plague.
I still have to work to overcome a similar issue as mentioned by another poster, that for me he just does not look like Bond, but like that other poster I to see this as my problem and not an issue for Eon ,Daniel or the series.
I would like more charm and style between the explosions, but have seen enough in CR to convince that Daniel could do that and pull off the odd well crafted lighter moment with aplomb.
I think that the biggest problem that Eon face with DC is that he is a fine actor of integrity and I don't think he would just stay around for the pay day, so they will have to keep him interested.
Sometimes he looks a bit dorky in a suit I find, in the final scene in the snow with M and with M at her office after the foot chase.
I agree with CR was very Fleming; it had to borrow from the novel and QoS doesn't really do that and suffers. I think the writers lack balls. And I never saw Fleming's Bond as so vengeance crazed here, except briefly towards the end of the novels in YOLT. But it's a new spin.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
To your first point, Craig has had no more input into the direction of the films than any other Bond actor before him. I don't think he showed up on the set of CR and said, we need to get rid of Q and Moneypenny, cut the gags, get rid of the gadgets, make Bond a loose cannon, have M yelling at him all the time, and we really need a shot of me coming out of the water rather than some hot actress. Decisions regarding the direction, look and feel of a film are made long before the actor even shows up on set. With Craig being a first time Bond, I am sure his input into the reboot was even less.
To your second point, you have mentioned before, that you know all these females that would never dream of going to a Bond film, but go because Craig is in the film. Why then have they not attended any of Craig's other films, that have all been relative bombs. Flashbacks of a Fool, The Invasion and The Golden Compass didn't draw many women to gaze at Craig. Seems to me, if they were going to "just" see Craig, then they would also attend his other movies, but they haven't.
The Bond films draw big crowds because they are, for the most part, well made films, that are almost always entertaining to some degree. Bond films are a proven product that audiences have learned to trust. As Jetset said, audiences will still go see Bond, long after Craig has left.
"Decisions regarding the direction, look and feel of a film are made long before the actor even shows up on set. With Craig being a first time Bond, I am sure his input into the reboot was even less."
I was horrified to read an interview with Marc Forster that when he was hired as Director, they had no script.
With all literary backup available to EON, that horrified me. Rather than little imput, I'd say under those circumstances DC and the Director had alot of imput. Given the way QOS played out - I think this film reflects it's star more than any previous Bond film.
Again Quoting Barry Nelson:
"The Bond films draw big crowds because they are, for the most part, well made films, that are almost always entertaining to some degree. Bond films are a proven product that audiences have learned to trust. As Jetset said, audiences will still go see Bond, long after Craig has left."
Very preceptive, but these film are also expensive. If at some point one of them fails to return a quick profit - then it could provoke a financial disaster (Especially these days!). An example is OHMSS which was a mild box office success, and a Bond failure.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond