Daniel Craig = Second coming of Timothy Dalton?

GordoLeiter

Since alot of Bond fans considered Brosnan the second comming of Sean Connery due to the similar style of thier portrayal of 007. Could the same be said about Craig being the second coming of Timothy Dalton, becasue the the two eras look very similar to each other when it comes to the style of the films and how the actors portray 007.


What do you think?

Thunderpussy

I don't regard him as the second coming, More the Anti-Moore
as it has been written, in the Books of Old.

One will come who will rebootith the series, there will be much wailling
( especially from Thunderpussy, the incredibly Handsome Bond Fan )
and nashing of teeth. But Low on his third Outing, Both He and the
producers will get the mix right to satisfy all groups.
And peace will once again fall across the Bond Community

Like that's ever gonna Happen.

GordoLeiter

Thunderpussy wrote:

I don't regard him as the second coming, More the Anti-Moore
as it has been written, in the Books of Old.

One will come who will rebootith the series, there will be much wailling
( especially from Thunderpussy, the incredibly Handsome Bond Fan )
and nashing of teeth. But Low on his third Outing, Both He and the
producers will get the mix right to satisfy all groups.
And peace will once again fall across the Bond Community

Like that's ever gonna Happen.

As much as i love the fun Moore era, heaven forbid that we get another Roger Moore after Craig, i dont think Bond fans want to deal with that again lol.

Blackleiter

So sayeth TP!

Thunderpussy wrote:

I don't regard him as the second coming, More the Anti-Moore
as it has been written, in the Books of Old.

One will come who will rebootith the series, there will be much wailling
( especially from Thunderpussy, the incredibly Handsome Bond Fan )
and nashing of teeth. But Low on his third Outing, Both He and the
producers will get the mix right to satisfy all groups.
And peace will once again fall across the Bond Community

Like that's ever gonna Happen.

chrisisall

GordoLeiter wrote:

As much as i love the fun Moore era, heaven forbid that we get another Roger Moore after Craig, i dont think Bond fans want to deal with that again lol.

My very professionally executed chart says we will be due for a lighter take fairly soon...



) ) ) )

DEFIANT 74205

While Craig's Bond and Dalton's Bond has certain similarities, I don't think of Craig's Bond as the "second coming of Dalton" for one reason: Craig's Bond is more physical. Perhaps it was because Craig's Bond came in the same era as the very successful Jason Bourne films, but nonetheless I think there is such a thing as too much. Fleming's Bond wasn't like that. He wasn't in fights every hour. He had a slim physique. That's not to mention the fact that Craig doesn't look anything like Fleming's Bond ...

chrisisall wrote:

My very professionally executed chart says we will be due for a lighter take fairly soon...

)

I love how Moonraker is off the scale )

Number24

chrisisall wrote:

GordoLeiter wrote:

As much as i love the fun Moore era, heaven forbid that we get another Roger Moore after Craig, i dont think Bond fans want to deal with that again lol.

My very professionally executed chart says we will be due for a lighter take fairly soon...



) ) ) )

Very accurate and very scientific - you should be given a grant from a prestigious university to continue your work. )

BIG TAM

Craig certainly has a great deal in common with Dalton. Both favour a tough, no-nonsense approach. Both take great pride in doing as much of their own action scenes as possible. Both are seen as lacking in humour. And both actors polarise opinion hugely. The tone of LICENCE TO KILL is certainly a forerunner of the Craig era.

Peppermill

Biggest difference, Dalton actually looks like Bond.

pyrat

Interesting comparisons. Hadn't really considered the comparison between TD and DC, but their portrayals are somewhat similar . I agree on the Bourne affect and that DC doesn't really look like Bond, but I'm warming to him, especially if Skyfall is as good as the trailers make it look.

Great chart Chrisisall!!! ) -{ -{ -{

Blackleiter

Have you ever seen a photo of Hoagy Carmichael? If you ask me, neither Dalton nor Craig resemble him very much, and that's the closest Fleming has come to describing Bond in the novels. I suppose Dalton is closer in that he is dark-haired, but that's about it.

http://www.latimes.com/includes/projects/hollywood/portraits/hoagy_carmichael.jpg

Peppermill wrote:

Biggest difference, Dalton actually looks like Bond.

Napoleon Plural

Craig has more experience as a move actor and it shows. Dalton really did ham it up imo, so all that talk about him being a better actor doesn't agree with me, at times he's no better than GL, especially at the one-liners. I know Dalton tries hard and means well, but it's not enough for me. He almost wants to be in a different film, where you're not meant to engage with the audience.

But Dalton would have been well served by CR, as Bond doesn't say much for the first hour or so. Even then, both actors suddenly have to be Cary Grant when with the ladies. It doesn't sit well. Dalton, being taller, couldn't have been a young Bond of course, if you're short like Craig you can seem younger for a longer time. Like Blur still have the ambience of teenagers more or less.

Number24

Actually, on that picture Hoagy Carmichael looks somewhat like Daniel Craig! Look at the nose and in particular the mouth. The hair is of course very different, but he looks more like Craig than any other Bond actor on that picture.

Number24

Am I alone in seeing a likeness?

zaphod

Blackleiter wrote:

Have you ever seen a photo of Hoagy Carmichael? If you ask me, neither Dalton nor Craig resemble him very much, and that's the closest Fleming has come to describing Bond in the novels. I suppose Dalton is closer in that he is dark-haired, but that's about it.

http://www.latimes.com/includes/projects/hollywood/portraits/hoagy_carmichael.jpg

Peppermill wrote:

Biggest difference, Dalton actually looks like Bond.

Unusually I have respectfully, and with some regret disagree with you on this occasion. I think that the long hawk like face of TD closely resembles Hoagy Carmichael, and is for me a part of the argument for what Bond looks like. However Fleming ( and here comes the potentially controversial bit ) is not the ultimate authority, he wanted David Niven for Christsakes so what did he know :-)

Also Bond is much more than 'the blunt instrument ' that Fleming asserts with a much stronger moral compass and code.

Blackleiter

Well.......at least you're respectful when you disagree! ) But I can see where an argument might be made that TD bears more of a resemblence to Carmichael than DC, although I don't think either one really looks that much like him. That being said, I am fully on board with your point about Fleming wanting David Niven to play the part - surely no one would argue that Niven looks like Hoagy Carmichael!

zaphod wrote:

Blackleiter wrote:

Have you ever seen a photo of Hoagy Carmichael? If you ask me, neither Dalton nor Craig resemble him very much, and that's the closest Fleming has come to describing Bond in the novels. I suppose Dalton is closer in that he is dark-haired, but that's about it.

http://www.latimes.com/includes/projects/hollywood/portraits/hoagy_carmichael.jpg

Peppermill wrote:

Biggest difference, Dalton actually looks like Bond.

Unusually I have respectfully, and with some regret disagree with you on this occasion. I think that the long hawk like face of TD closely resembles Hoagy Carmichael, and is for me a part of the argument for what Bond looks like. However Fleming ( and here comes the potentially controversial bit ) is not the ultimate authority, he wanted David Niven for Christsakes so what did he know :-)

Also Bond is much more than 'the blunt instrument ' that Fleming asserts with a much stronger moral compass and code.

Napoleon Plural

I can see the physical likeness, yes. That said, Craig has a bruiser quality, a churlishness, a chip on shoulder thing going on that I never really saw in the novel Bond. The villains might have a chip on their shoulder, but Bond rarely if I recall. Not that I necessarily cared much for the book Bond, not a convivial fellow.

Peppermill

Fleming didn't tell us much about Bond's looks, he was around 6'0", had dark hair that formed a comma above his right (?) eyebrow, a cruel mouth and most notably; a 2 inch scar down his cheek. We have never seen a Bond actor with a scar on his cheek while it could have easily, even in the 60's, been done with make-up. Fleming gave Bond a Scottish heritage after Connery started playing Bond so maybe his looks started to change as well over the years/books/movies.

But a lot of characters in the movies are totally different from their literary counterparts. Tanner, M (Dame Judy), Goodnight, Dr. No and Leiter. I may sound like a broken gramophone but I think it is such a same that the Bond/Leiter friendship is never shown like it was is the novels. And while I'm not an expert in American accents I guess most Leiters aren't from Texas.

On topic, sorry, I really enjoyed TLD and LTK and Craig is doing a fantastic job as Bond, I just didn't like QoS and because of his height and haircolor I have a hard time picturing him as 007

GordoLeiter

Actually there is an "offical" sketch of what Flemming's Bond looks like, its also on the wikipedia page:



Suprisingly the only actor that looks closest to this is.......George Lazenby.

Blackleiter

Looks a lot like Fleming himself to me!

GordoLeiter wrote:

Actually there is an "offical" sketch of what Flemming's Bond looks like, its also on the wikipedia page:



Suprisingly the only actor that looks closest to this is.......George Lazenby.

Thunderpussy

Or ........................., This Guy. :v

GordoLeiter

Thunderpussy wrote:

Or ........................., This Guy. :v

Come to think of it he does look like Sean Connery a little bit in that pic

zaphod

GordoLeiter wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

Or ........................., This Guy. :v

Come to think of it he does look like Sean Connery a little bit in that pic

Can't see it myself. I know that a lot of Bond fans are praying that he is next one. Perhaps I need to see more of his work but he leaves me cold and seems a bit weedy.Any particular suggestions where he gives off potential Bondness?

Loeffelholz

For me, Bond has always been more than a hair colour, a specific height, or the literary scar on the character's cheek. IMO, it's the spirit and intent of the portrayal. Dalton was very good, but the producers attempted to 'have their cake and eat it too,' inasmuch as Dalton's Bond was forced to deal with some awkwardly 'shoed-in' humour, which didn't serve the franchise well. By the next time they'd gotten up the nerve to do it, Eon finally had the legal rights to the CR novel, and thus seemed motivated to really take a chance, and I believe it's paid off nicely.

Craig's Bond, like Fleming's literary Bond, takes a physical beating. This isn't just about raised eyebrows and ironic smiles; not anymore.

Peppermill

Are you calling me superficial Loeffelholz?

Hardyboy

Michael Fassbender is a good actor and I think he could indeed be a good Bond; but right now I think he's kind of overexposed--and, no, I'm not talking about his showing his accoutrements in Shame. He's just in everything now--big-budget blockbusters, small art films, movies for the masses, movies for the elite. . . I dunno: I kind of like it when a new Bond has a real "unknown" quality to him. . .

Blackleiter

I second that!

Loeffelholz wrote:

For me, Bond has always been more than a hair colour, a specific height, or the literary scar on the character's cheek. IMO, it's the spirit and intent of the portrayal. Dalton was very good, but the producers attempted to 'have their cake and eat it too,' inasmuch as Dalton's Bond was forced to deal with some awkwardly 'shoed-in' humour, which didn't serve the franchise well. By the next time they'd gotten up the nerve to do it, Eon finally had the legal rights to the CR novel, and thus seemed motivated to really take a chance, and I believe it's paid off nicely.

Craig's Bond, like Fleming's literary Bond, takes a physical beating. This isn't just about raised eyebrows and ironic smiles; not anymore.

Peppermill

Loeffelholz wrote:

For me, Bond has always been more than a hair colour, a specific height, or the literary scar on the character's cheek. IMO, it's the spirit and intent of the portrayal. Dalton was very good, but the producers attempted to 'have their cake and eat it too,' inasmuch as Dalton's Bond was forced to deal with some awkwardly 'shoed-in' humour, which didn't serve the franchise well. By the next time they'd gotten up the nerve to do it, Eon finally had the legal rights to the CR novel, and thus seemed motivated to really take a chance, and I believe it's paid off nicely.

Craig's Bond, like Fleming's literary Bond, takes a physical beating. This isn't just about raised eyebrows and ironic smiles; not anymore.

But in that case I wonder what you think about the "scratch my balls" line in CR. Is that very 'Fleming'? Or is this more the raised eyebrows and ironic smiles you both seem to hate....

Blackleiter

I thought the "scratch my balls" line was far different from the eye-raising, silly quips so prevalent in the Roger Moore Bonds. For one thing, there was nothing light or frivolous about the context in which the line was uttered. Bond was being tortured and obviously in some peril, something I never felt when Roger was tossing about his one-liners. Also, it was apparent that Bond wasn't trying to be funny or cute, but rather that he was trying to frustrate his torturer and convince him that the tactic wasn't working. At least that's my take on it.

Peppermill wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

For me, Bond has always been more than a hair colour, a specific height, or the literary scar on the character's cheek. IMO, it's the spirit and intent of the portrayal. Dalton was very good, but the producers attempted to 'have their cake and eat it too,' inasmuch as Dalton's Bond was forced to deal with some awkwardly 'shoed-in' humour, which didn't serve the franchise well. By the next time they'd gotten up the nerve to do it, Eon finally had the legal rights to the CR novel, and thus seemed motivated to really take a chance, and I believe it's paid off nicely.

Craig's Bond, like Fleming's literary Bond, takes a physical beating. This isn't just about raised eyebrows and ironic smiles; not anymore.

But in that case I wonder what you think about the "scratch my balls" line in CR. Is that very 'Fleming'? Or is this more the raised eyebrows and ironic smiles you both seem to hate....

Napoleon Plural

Yeah, that's fair enough, that's how it was intended. I personally don't rejoice in the line, something in the execution of CR doesn't quite work for me, same with that 'little finger' line, it just seems more creepy than sardonic, but it's all a far cry from those knowing witticisms that bogged the franchise down ulitmately.

Loeffelholz

Peppermill wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

For me, Bond has always been more than a hair colour, a specific height, or the literary scar on the character's cheek. IMO, it's the spirit and intent of the portrayal. Dalton was very good, but the producers attempted to 'have their cake and eat it too,' inasmuch as Dalton's Bond was forced to deal with some awkwardly 'shoed-in' humour, which didn't serve the franchise well. By the next time they'd gotten up the nerve to do it, Eon finally had the legal rights to the CR novel, and thus seemed motivated to really take a chance, and I believe it's paid off nicely.

Craig's Bond, like Fleming's literary Bond, takes a physical beating. This isn't just about raised eyebrows and ironic smiles; not anymore.

But in that case I wonder what you think about the "scratch my balls" line in CR. Is that very 'Fleming'? Or is this more the raised eyebrows and ironic smiles you both seem to hate....

The "scratch my balls" line isn't my favourite one in the piece, that's for sure. I much prefer: "To the right! To the right!"

Craigger isn't so much the Second Coming of Timothy Dalton, in my opinion, as he is the driver of a high-performance machine that is finally in tune with itself. Dalton was such a welcome change for me, when he came along, that it was easy to forgive the residual silliness that clung to his films like remoras on a shark. The humour in the Craig films (which is there! ) works for me within the context of the stories being told. I trust SF will be much the same.

We all can (and will) disagree on the good and bad points of the Craig Era, but in my opinion his films are more 'Fleming,' and at least they know exactly what they're about. It's a James Bond I'd been waiting all my life to see :007)