If they replace him with Christian Bale, Tom Hardy or Michael Fassbender, then yes I yearn for that day.
But they could get someone significantly worse.
“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a better understanding of ourselves.” - Carl Jung
No. Qos was a bum note for me, but I like Mr Craig as the character, and CR ticked all the boxes for me. Not at first, it was the second time I saw it it sank in properly, and its become my favourite Bond film of the lot. As to comments about the look / physicality / manner / fighting style etc, a lot of these aspects in the character are not down to the actor! We all know that. The Bond build, the Bond wardrobe style, Bond's drinks, - the podcasts alone (brilliant by the way David, don't stop!) demonstrate how little control the actor who plays 007 actually has.
Hardyboy is right - the Bond films have changed and evolved and reflected the timeframe in which they were each made. All have strengths and weaknesses, but one consistency is the calibre of the actor playing Bond. I also think that Craig has provided "that Bond there wot Fleming wrote," and in some ways, it might be argued took the character that Dalton first hinted at and advanced the style. - When Bond is stripped naked and whacked in the CENSORED! by Le Chiffre, I was wincing at what he was going through, amazed at his build, but also thought "I can't see any of the previous 007's agreeing to this scene!"
In the end, all forms of film and tv narrative evolve, they have to. The difference with Bond is the films is since they started in the early 60's have created an unbroken chain. But each link in that chain has been different. Bond will continue to evolve. Like life, the whole point is to enjoy the present point, and reflect / reminisce on the past creations. - Not look too far ahead, and anticipate something that could be a crashing disappointment, if it happens at all...
Daniel Craig IS James Bond. Nothing else matters for now.
This talk of the Bond series "getting back to what it used to be" before Craig became Bond strikes me as ridiculous. When a new Bond comes along the series will be different, and I'm sure people will be whining and complaining that the films ain't what they were back in the good ol' Craig days. James Bond movies constantly change and develop--not just with actors, but with eras. A style that worked for one time usually doesn't work in a different period. It amazes me that a lot of people here have forgotten that in recent years the producers did try to create a Roger Moore-style Bond film, with outsized sets and a science fiction plot: the result was Die Another Day, which, fairly or unfairly, is one of the most hated Bond flicks ever made. Sometimes you can't go back.
I think Hardyboy pretty much has it pegged. One of the secrets to the success of the Bond franchise is that it is constantly evolving to fit the times. I think Craig is pretty damn good for the time being and suited to this period. I just hope Skyfall is well written.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
I didn't mention muscles! In fact in my opinion in QoS he is not gym muscular at all, mainly lean! DC is no longer looking like a bodybuilder - CR he looked big but is a stick now in comparison. I'm on about his all round characteristics and ability to act out his fight scenes (take note Roger Moore, with his dainty karate chop pose). Daniel Craig comes across as dangerous and believable in fight scenes, from his eyes, attitude as well as his actions, not just muscle!!
Granted a lot of this comes down to choreography and chosen level of realism however to date I would say DC's Bond is closest to Flemmings cold killer which is refreshing for me. I don't want to return back to the old days quite just yet!!
Agree that best fighters are not the beefcakes! I've learnt myself in a few scraps from my younger days that speed is key over power lol!! However some of our spy's don't even look fit enough to last 90 mins in a footie match
That beginning scene in Cowboys and Aliens where Craig basically punches the bloke to death in the beginning is pretty believable. It doesn't matter about size etc, you wouldn't want to be looking up at a guy hitting you like that.
Could not agree more, it's not about size, or realism, this is cinema after all. What it is about is gravitas, and stature. I have no doubt that DC looks kick ass, or that smaller faster opponents represent the real threat. As Cinema is primarily a visual medium, what things look like really matter.
Daniel Craig IS James Bond. Nothing else matters for now.
Couldn't put it better myself.
I can't but be curious as to what the intention was with the question?
I mean, it's not that this topic hasn't been discussed (is DC right for the role, blah, blah, blah) at length.
Don't worry, the marmite pot will soon be finished and you can go back to marmalade )
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
Frank Cooper's Vintage Marmalade on toast with a cuppa. That's a cuppa coffee because James Bond loathe's tea.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
when I was in my fifteens, it was kind of cool to be "against" the present 007 actor.
Made someone even more cool than the man himself.
Even today a very popular reply from most everyone who knows nothing about the franchise (and is not even able to name 3 Bond actors at all) is: Sean Connery was the best - the main actor is too (insert what you want (blond, small, muscular, funny, camp etc)).
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Frank Cooper's Vintage Marmalade on toast with a cuppa. That's a cuppa coffee because James Bond loathe's tea.
DG
Called it a cup of mud and the cause of the fall of the British empire,if my memory serves me correct.
I believe it was in Goldfinger, Bond was night duty officer and a secretary offerd him a cup of tea and a ham sandwich.
Been a few years since I read it so I could be wrong.
The answer to the question depends on when Daniel Craig actually plays James Bond. I've said this before but Craig hasn't really played Bond yet. He was supposed to in Quantum of Solace and all we got was a dumb Brosnan style action movie. Without Brosnan's charm. That is my problem with Daniel Craig. Casino Royale was an almost perfect origin of Bond story. The producers, writers, director of QoS didn't get it at all and made a mess of a movie. I have high hopes for Skyfall as I did with QoS but realistically with the a lot of the same people involved and if they completely drop the Quantum Group storyline. I kind of look forward to another complete reboot. Maybe that will capture the magic of the first group of Connery films.
when I was in my fifteens, it was kind of cool to be "against" the present 007 actor.
Made someone even more cool than the man himself.
Even today a very popular reply from most everyone who knows nothing about the franchise (and is not even able to name 3 Bond actors at all) is: Sean Connery was the best - the main actor is too (insert what you want (blond, small, muscular, funny, camp etc)).
So far this "popular" reply also seems to be pretty accurate to me. But as a cinematic Bond fan from the beginning, I can articulate my reasons for feeling this way. However, I suspect if you ask recent or more casual fans of the franchise why this is so, many would probably just parrot what they think they "should" say. In that respect I think you're right, Bondtoys.
when I was in my fifteens, it was kind of cool to be "against" the present 007 actor.
Made someone even more cool than the man himself.
Even today a very popular reply from most everyone who knows nothing about the franchise (and is not even able to name 3 Bond actors at all) is: Sean Connery was the best - the main actor is too (insert what you want (blond, small, muscular, funny, camp etc)).
Recent years have seen a power balance shift in favour of Babs. This worries me, so I'm not particularly keen to see the next choice she makes. It still fills me with horror that if she had got her way earlier we would have had Sean Bean.The deciding factor is how well or not DC ages, and the length of gap in between Films. We shall have to wait for Skyfall in order to take a view on that.
Recent years have seen a power balance shift in favour of Babs. This worries me, so I'm not particularly keen to see the next choice she makes. It still fills me with horror that if she had got her way earlier we would have had Sean Bean.The deciding factor is how well or not DC ages, and the length of gap in between Films. We shall have to wait for Skyfall in order to take a view on that.
There's a guy on BlipTV, who believes that GoldenEye would've been a much better film if Pierce Brosnan had been cast as the Alec Trevelyan character, with Sean Bean taking over the role of James Bond.
Just because to him, Pierce Brosnan came off as a bland James Bond character, who was basically going through the motions, while pretending to look cool and act tough, and Pierce was essentially coming off as a big budget Remington Steele character, who was a bit too dull and lifeless, not to mention stiff, for his tastes. Of course, this is only his opinion. His American opinion, from God knows where in the States. It doesn't represent any European opinions or any eastern seaboard USofA personal opinions.
Of course, considering how "lacking," the Pierce Brosnan Bond films are in retrospect, I'm sort of inclined to agree with him, on some small level.
So far this "popular" reply also seems to be pretty accurate to me. But as a cinematic Bond fan from the beginning, I can articulate my reasons for feeling this way. However, I suspect if you ask recent or more casual fans of the franchise why this is so, many would probably just parrot what they think they "should" say. In that respect I think you're right, Bondtoys.
Thanks, BL.
I am happy, that I have obviously been able to make my point
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I always find myself in 2 minds when it is anounced that an actor is leaving the role. I'm disappointed that someone I liked won't be playing the part anymore ala Dalton and Brosnan, but on the other hand excited to see what the next actor will make of the part.
Do you look forward to the day when Craig is no longer James Bond?
Yes.
But by then there will be nothing left for the right actor to build on.
It almost too late, already.
Richard
The top 7 Bond films: 1) Dr No. 2) From Russia With Love. 3) Thunderball. 4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 5) For Your Eyes Only. 6) The Living Daylights. 7) Licence to Kill.
As a lit Bond fan, do his looks and size annoy me? YES.
Does his original pretentiousness ("I thought I'd have a look and then say no, thany you very much"), and his descent in selling EVERYTHING he's asked to market as well as getting his tits out at every opportunity annoy me? YES. And so does some of the bollocks he talks in interviews. But so did/do most of the other Bonds.
Was CR good and QOS a total let down? OF COURSE.
Does Craig have the class to carry off the sophistication bit. OF COURSE, and he's not as OTT poncy as Rog and Broz; Fleming wouldn't have considered them tough enough.
Could SKYFALL turn out to be a load of pretentious, luvvey bollocks? YES.
Might Craig stay on as Bond too long 'cos his non-Bond career's nose-diving and end up playing Bond when he really does look like Sid James? YES, and I hated every damn second of Rog melting in front of my eyes, too.
BUT - we haven't seen SKYFALL yet. And Craig has what it takes to be a great Bond and the film to be a classic.
I think DC really wants Skyfall to be at least as good as CR. if it is he will probably bail afterwards. I think that 3 will be the right number, and perhaps no one should do more than 3.
Am I looking forward to a change? I think it all depends on Skyfall so at the moment I have no strong feelings, except possibly a slight dread of what EON ( read Babs) will do next
Even if it was possible for Craig to hang on to Bond into his elder years, It wouldn't be like Moore. It would be more like an old Ford in the last few Indy's. Or Sly Stallone/Bruce Willis. Still athletic enough for action.
Craig will not do for now. He hasn't done for now, and he's not doing for later. He's fine in other things, but he will never do for Bond.
The top 7 Bond films: 1) Dr No. 2) From Russia With Love. 3) Thunderball. 4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 5) For Your Eyes Only. 6) The Living Daylights. 7) Licence to Kill.
This talk of the Bond series "getting back to what it used to be" before Craig became Bond strikes me as ridiculous. When a new Bond comes along the series will be different, and I'm sure people will be whining and complaining that the films ain't what they were back in the good ol' Craig days. James Bond movies constantly change and develop--not just with actors, but with eras. A style that worked for one time usually doesn't work in a different period. It amazes me that a lot of people here have forgotten that in recent years the producers did try to create a Roger Moore-style Bond film, with outsized sets and a science fiction plot: the result was Die Another Day, which, fairly or unfairly, is one of the most hated Bond flicks ever made. Sometimes you can't go back.
So true. Unfortunately some number of people will always hate/fear change. If you're constantly hoping for Bond to rerun to the so-called glory days (which consisted of what? Connery's first four?), I might argue that you're just not a fan of the Bond franchise; you're a fan of 4 Bond films and would be happier leaving Bond as a relic of the past.
Personally, I love the changing, evolving Bond. Fundamentally different in every era but also, somehow, the same. This is what keeps Bond alive. Bond does not exist in a vaccuum, and there will be necessary and noticeable differences in a bond from the 60s and one from the 10's (or 70s, 80s, etc.). Appreciating each Bond within his era is a necessity.
There have been missteps along the way, for sure, but the sheer fact that the cinematic Bond is now 50 is proof positive that most things have been gotten right. Bond has not merely endured, he has thrived.
I like Daniel Craig as Bond but it is a unique take on the character. From the looks of Skyfall - this probably is as far as you can go with the 'darker' blunt-edged Bond . So where do you go from here ?
1) An even more textured, literate story 'directed by David Fincher' and discarding any hint of bond escapism
2) Inject more ...... humour !! e.g. Bond straightening his tie as he falls down a ravine - and that's just for starters ....
3) Aim the film at 12 year olds and go the Bruce Willis / GI Joe route where Judy Dench is replaced by Samuel L Jackson and Bond discovers a daughter who happens to be a 'kick-ass' teen complete with computer geek buddy.
Personally i'd like to see Craig do one more ( just one more ) Bond film so we have a Craig Era and then go for someone like Michael fassbender or someone who has that cold war / austerity coolness that Connery captured.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,937Chief of Staff
I like DC as Bond, I have high hopes for Skyfall (when will we start calling it SF?) and hope he will make one or two after that. But I think the process of finding the new Bond will be fun. The last time was fun too, but it was too vicious at times. It is unlikely the next Bond will be accompanied by such a dramatic reboot, so I doubt the debate will get that heated and vicous.
Comments
But they could get someone significantly worse.
I think Hardyboy pretty much has it pegged. One of the secrets to the success of the Bond franchise is that it is constantly evolving to fit the times. I think Craig is pretty damn good for the time being and suited to this period. I just hope Skyfall is well written.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Could not agree more, it's not about size, or realism, this is cinema after all. What it is about is gravitas, and stature. I have no doubt that DC looks kick ass, or that smaller faster opponents represent the real threat. As Cinema is primarily a visual medium, what things look like really matter.
Couldn't put it better myself.
I can't but be curious as to what the intention was with the question?
I mean, it's not that this topic hasn't been discussed (is DC right for the role, blah, blah, blah) at length.
Don't worry, the marmite pot will soon be finished and you can go back to marmalade
why does that not surprise me
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Made someone even more cool than the man himself.
Even today a very popular reply from most everyone who knows nothing about the franchise (and is not even able to name 3 Bond actors at all) is: Sean Connery was the best - the main actor is too (insert what you want (blond, small, muscular, funny, camp etc)).
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I believe it was in Goldfinger, Bond was night duty officer and a secretary offerd him a cup of tea and a ham sandwich.
Been a few years since I read it so I could be wrong.
What's your point?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
There's a guy on BlipTV, who believes that GoldenEye would've been a much better film if Pierce Brosnan had been cast as the Alec Trevelyan character, with Sean Bean taking over the role of James Bond.
Just because to him, Pierce Brosnan came off as a bland James Bond character, who was basically going through the motions, while pretending to look cool and act tough, and Pierce was essentially coming off as a big budget Remington Steele character, who was a bit too dull and lifeless, not to mention stiff, for his tastes. Of course, this is only his opinion. His American opinion, from God knows where in the States. It doesn't represent any European opinions or any eastern seaboard USofA personal opinions.
Of course, considering how "lacking," the Pierce Brosnan Bond films are in retrospect, I'm sort of inclined to agree with him, on some small level.
http://haphazardstuff.com/TheBrosnanAgeGoldenEye.html (He's using a BlipTV video embedded player if you want to check out his GE review for yourself.)
Thanks, BL.
I am happy, that I have obviously been able to make my point
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Yes.
But by then there will be nothing left for the right actor to build on.
It almost too late, already.
Richard
As a lit Bond fan, do his looks and size annoy me? YES.
Does his original pretentiousness ("I thought I'd have a look and then say no, thany you very much"), and his descent in selling EVERYTHING he's asked to market as well as getting his tits out at every opportunity annoy me? YES. And so does some of the bollocks he talks in interviews. But so did/do most of the other Bonds.
Was CR good and QOS a total let down? OF COURSE.
Does Craig have the class to carry off the sophistication bit. OF COURSE, and he's not as OTT poncy as Rog and Broz; Fleming wouldn't have considered them tough enough.
Could SKYFALL turn out to be a load of pretentious, luvvey bollocks? YES.
Might Craig stay on as Bond too long 'cos his non-Bond career's nose-diving and end up playing Bond when he really does look like Sid James? YES, and I hated every damn second of Rog melting in front of my eyes, too.
BUT - we haven't seen SKYFALL yet. And Craig has what it takes to be a great Bond and the film to be a classic.
So I'm happy to be where we are now.
Am I looking forward to a change? I think it all depends on Skyfall so at the moment I have no strong feelings, except possibly a slight dread of what EON ( read Babs) will do next
Even if it was possible for Craig to hang on to Bond into his elder years, It wouldn't be like Moore. It would be more like an old Ford in the last few Indy's. Or Sly Stallone/Bruce Willis. Still athletic enough for action.
So true. Unfortunately some number of people will always hate/fear change. If you're constantly hoping for Bond to rerun to the so-called glory days (which consisted of what? Connery's first four?), I might argue that you're just not a fan of the Bond franchise; you're a fan of 4 Bond films and would be happier leaving Bond as a relic of the past.
Personally, I love the changing, evolving Bond. Fundamentally different in every era but also, somehow, the same. This is what keeps Bond alive. Bond does not exist in a vaccuum, and there will be necessary and noticeable differences in a bond from the 60s and one from the 10's (or 70s, 80s, etc.). Appreciating each Bond within his era is a necessity.
There have been missteps along the way, for sure, but the sheer fact that the cinematic Bond is now 50 is proof positive that most things have been gotten right. Bond has not merely endured, he has thrived.
1) An even more textured, literate story 'directed by David Fincher' and discarding any hint of bond escapism
2) Inject more ...... humour !! e.g. Bond straightening his tie as he falls down a ravine - and that's just for starters ....
3) Aim the film at 12 year olds and go the Bruce Willis / GI Joe route where Judy Dench is replaced by Samuel L Jackson and Bond discovers a daughter who happens to be a 'kick-ass' teen complete with computer geek buddy.
Personally i'd like to see Craig do one more ( just one more ) Bond film so we have a Craig Era and then go for someone like Michael fassbender or someone who has that cold war / austerity coolness that Connery captured.
Oh god please no !!!
Leave that for Sir Roger and Pierce....one day that 'type' of actor will come round again...but not for DC...