Danial Craig

russellalmond

Hello folks, i`m new to this forum so this may have been a topic of conversation before, but is anybody else not all that impressed with Danial Craig`s Bond,Casino Royal was good but Quantum of Solace a big let down, it just didn`t have the feel of a Bond film, what does anybody else think?::007)

Paperbill

This had been discussed before, CR in IMHO is one of the best movies of all time, hard to follow that!

The Number

I have to say and I simply do not see where it comes from but I thought QoS was a good to great film. I'm just not seeing what was disappointing about it.

Of course I agree with Paper CR was simply one of the best Bond films of all time but I think QoS was a nice follow up to it, I am very much looking forward to next Craig outing.

sdu754

I didn't think that Daniel Craig made all that good a James Bond. The series should go back to Pierce Bronsen. I'm not saying anything bad about Craig, but he just wasn't a good fit as bond, would have made a much better villian.

Napoleon Plural

Do you know, I don't think I've ever given it much thought.

Thunderpussy

I have to admit that this new working class/blue collar Bond is not for me.Not only is he dressed by Tom Ford he drives one as well. (perhaps to save on the budget for the next one they could get him to direct as well ). With CR they have changed Bond's history slightly,Making it clear that he only got into university by others charity or scholarship. When up till now from the books I had asumed Bond's Family was from the Lower Upper Class. He may of been looked after by an aunt but wasn't a Dicken's style Orphan.
With Craigs Bond I feel he'd be a seargent in the SAS not an Officer.
Gone are the fine wines and great menus,Instead we get Bond drinking beer from a Bottle, not caring how his martini is made,When infact from the books we know Bond does care about all these things. He likes his boiled eges a certin way,his short sleeved shirts and his martini shaken. I expect in the next one he'll be eating at McDonalds (More product placement). Far fom Bond giving us a view into a world we Don't know,where rich villians are plotting fantastic crimes to kill thousands etc, A world of wealth and luxuary, ( which was the world of the novels), We are given a Drab everyday world with small time crooks,. Can we look forward to Bond stopping to pay a congestion fee,Complaining about his pay (Like Harry Palmer)
For those who say The new Bond is a return to the Books,I have to admit, I must be reading them diffrently,as the Bond I know is Cruel and violent when needed but has a veneer of respectability, Where as Craig's Bond is Basicly a working class Yob in an Expensive Suit, a thug in the employ of her Majesty. and IMHO far removed from Fleming's character

superdaddy

I do agree with a little of what you say Thunderpussy in fact Craigs portrayol of Bond kinda reminds me of Sean Beans Sharp a commaner who works his way up the ranks becomes an officer but finds it hard to be accepted by the higher classes. Still he is by no means the worst Bond in fact there are no bad ones they all have different takes on the part and imho we will get the perfect Bond with Henry Cavill if hopefully he becomes 007 no7.

Napoleon Plural

I wouldn't bet on Cavill being the perfect Bond, however it may seem.

Brosnan's movies should have been great, but even with four bites of the cherry he always retained an air of the nearly man. And by the time Craig got offered the role, he was getting on a bit. The producers are always a bit behind the curve imo.

zaphod

Thunderpussy wrote:

I have to admit that this new working class/blue collar Bond is not for me.Not only is he dressed by Tom Ford he drives one as well. (perhaps to save on the budget for the next one they could get him to direct as well ). With CR they have changed Bond's history slightly,Making it clear that he only got into university by others charity or scholarship. When up till now from the books I had asumed Bond's Family was from the Lower Upper Class. He may of been looked after by an aunt but wasn't a Dicken's style Orphan.
With Craigs Bond I feel he'd be a seargent in the SAS not an Officer.
Gone are the fine wines and great menus,Instead we get Bond drinking beer from a Bottle, not caring how his martini is made,When infact from the books we know Bond does care about all these things. He likes his boiled eges a certin way,his short sleeved shirts and his martini shaken. I expect in the next one he'll be eating at McDonalds (More product placement). Far fom Bond giving us a view into a world we Don't know,where rich villians are plotting fantastic crimes to kill thousands etc, A world of wealth and luxuary, ( which was the world of the novels), We are given a Drab everyday world with small time crooks,. Can we look forward to Bond stopping to pay a congestion fee,Complaining about his pay (Like Harry Palmer)
For those who say The new Bond is a return to the Books,I have to admit, I must be reading them diffrently,as the Bond I know is Cruel and violent when needed but has a veneer of respectability, Where as Craig's Bond is Basicly a working class Yob in an Expensive Suit, a thug in the employ of her Majesty. and IMHO far removed from Fleming's character

This is a real and knotty problem that gets right to the heart of what divides opinion re Craig's Bond. I have come to believe that DC is very good, so good that he almost makes me forget how miscast he is as Bond. However in falling over themselves to 'update' the character something important has been lost in translation. My Wife (also also a life long Bond nut) has as her main gripe that "he looks like a Squaddie and not an Officer" I think that she is rght, and to date we have seen plenty of 'thug' but precious little class. Class is a real problem in making a contemporary Bond, in as much as we cannot pretend that it is still the 1950's and that the modern Bond has to acknowledge this fact. A Scottish Housekeeper for example would be a real anachronism and aborrant for today's Bond. That said the pendulum has possibly swung to far. I applaud the real toughness, the lack of crass jokes and the sense of inner turmoil that fuels Craigs Bond. I think that the problem is not so much DC, as he is a fine enough actor to pull off the class, but in the decsions that Eon have made in how to portray him. I have high hopes that 23 will redress the balance and we get a Bond who has a little fun (his life cannot be all pain), perhaps even beds a girl or three but manages to be fierce and savage to counterbalance. He needs to take pleasure in and appreciate fine things as he must not become a generic Action-Man devoid of wit or charm.

Craig I am sure has not yet had the opportunity to give us his complete Bond yet. I could live with the 'rough Diamond' of CR but look forward to the finished article in 23.

The Domino Effect

I think Craig is a superb Bond and CR a superb film, but I'll be the first to admit that this Bond isn't quite Fleming's Bond. But, as Zaphod and others have capably suggested, we really can't have a true Fleming Bond as long as films are set in the present day. Fleming's Bond in 2010 would immediately be regarded as a racist, sexist anachronism. Bond's attitude in the 1950s/1960s was borderline racist/sexist but it was in keeping with possibly the majority of British attitudes at the time. Today it would be just wrong and simply not tolerated. So, if we must remove that aspect of his character due to it being unpalatable for the majority of the audience, at which point do we stop the modernisation effort? We could probably fairly easily re-inject a bit more class-consciousness which could remove some of the feelings that Craig's Bond is a thug, a ranker or a longshoreman - but perhaps EON believe that classism is as dead as sexism/racism. Personally, I think that this Bond could be more refined and gentlemanly in Bond 23 without weakening the character development and perhaps that's what will happen. There are plenty of Old Etonians with rugby physiques! We should also remember that CR and QOS are both rather dark films with Bond bent on personal retribution and revenge and that that left little opportunity for classic Bond levity. Someone remarked that Bond didn't even care how his martini was made in CR but I don't think that's quite true. My interpretation of that remark was that he didn't care at that moment, not that he didn't care at all. I'm not sure that DC could ever be as suave as RM or even PB, but then again RM couldn't have believably done CR or QOS...and I'm not even sure that PB could have pulled them off. DC is perfect for this Bond...and I am perfectly happy with this Bond...for now. What the future holds perhaps only Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson know.

thesecretagent

I must admit I found Casino Royale a very good film and was impressed by Craig's performance. It was refreshing. However, I now find him too thuggish in QoS and hope his character ages a little and his performance tones down a little for his next outing. With Craig you have the best weapon handler in the series, the best physical fighter - but bugger-all sophistication. He'll never be Pierce Brosnan, but he could lean quite closely towards Sean Connery, and tough with a little class would be perfect.

THA-NATURAL

The Domino Effect wrote:

I think Craig is a superb Bond and CR a superb film, but I'll be the first to admit that this Bond isn't quite Fleming's Bond. But, as Zaphod and others have capably suggested, we really can't have a true Fleming Bond as long as films are set in the present day. Fleming's Bond in 2010 would immediately be regarded as a racist, sexist anachronism. Bond's attitude in the 1950s/1960s was borderline racist/sexist but it was in keeping with possibly the majority of British attitudes at the time. Today it would be just wrong and simply not tolerated. So, if we must remove that aspect of his character due to it being unpalatable for the majority of the audience, at which point do we stop the modernisation effort? We could probably fairly easily re-inject a bit more class-consciousness which could remove some of the feelings that Craig's Bond is a thug, a ranker or a longshoreman - but perhaps EON believe that classism is as dead as sexism/racism. Personally, I think that this Bond could be more refined and gentlemanly in Bond 23 without weakening the character development and perhaps that's what will happen. There are plenty of Old Etonians with rugby physiques! We should also remember that CR and QOS are both rather dark films with Bond bent on personal retribution and revenge and that that left little opportunity for classic Bond levity. Someone remarked that Bond didn't even care how his martini was made in CR but I don't think that's quite true. My interpretation of that remark was that he didn't care at that moment, not that he didn't care at all. I'm not sure that DC could ever be as suave as RM or even PB, but then again RM couldn't have believably done CR or QOS...and I'm not even sure that PB could have pulled them off. DC is perfect for this Bond...and I am perfectly happy with this Bond...for now. What the future holds perhaps only Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson know.

Well stated I agree with everything.

Russell Kozlosky

DC is positively the Best Bond since SC. You have to keep in mind-- the Bond he plays has just recently become a double 0. He is NOT a continuation of past Bonds-- the character has yet to develop the traits that most fans have come to expect in the Bond character. Expect a more refined Bond in 23, now that he is over the doublecross/deth of Vesper. Read or re-read IF's Casino Royale , you'll see that DC is portraying the new 007 very similar to Fleming's first Bond Book.

Please accept my apology for previous and future type-o's.

thesecretagent

Royal? Flemming? Come on man!

Hardyboy

thesecretagent wrote:

Royal? Flemming? Come on man!

Considering this thread is called "Danial Craig" (I don't know whether that should be Daniel or Denial), more spelling errors shouldn't make any difference. . .

Russell Kozlosky

thesecretagent wrote:

Royal? Flemming? Come on man!

Sorry for the careless and unforgivable misspellings-- I will now go to live in total isolation and contemplate how useless a human being that I truly am - it's the only honorable consequence to such an unthinkable over site.

thesecretagent

Russell Kozlosky wrote:

thesecretagent wrote:

Royal? Flemming? Come on man!

Sorry for the careless and unforgivable misspellings-- I will now go to live in total isolation and contemplate how useless a human being that I truly am - it's the only honorable consequence to such an unthinkable over site.

Good boy.