Getting back to the initial question in the first post, Daniel Craig has a real talent for action and stunts. He's a physical actor. He hurls himself into physical challenges like no one else I've seen in the movies.
The action is important in Bond films, but I'm more interested in the story. Plot and characters matter. Good writing matters to me more than action scenes. One should never assume that action scenes are the only things that audiences care about.
But the truth is any reasonably athletic actor can do the same action scenes and stunts if he has the training. It's nothing special or unique. The real distinction is in how he interprets the role and what he brings to it. Craig is a persuasive and compelling actor, but he has failed to display a grasp of James Bond. I don't know who he's playing in the Bond films, but it isn't James Bond. Not really. He's got the name but internally, emotionally, he's playing someone else. In SKYFALL he is morose and dejected. That's not James Bond for any time. I appreciate Craig as an actor but I enjoy his non-Bond films a lot more.
Richard
Craig is playing Bond relative to how the script's are characterizing him. From my limited perspective, the literary Bond was no barrel of laughes (not that Craig's Bond is a direct interpretation of that either).
The rebooted Bond has a different military background than the past cinematic Bonds (Connery, Moore, et al) had been Naval Intelligence Officers; Craig's Bond was in SBS and entered the intelligence world as a civilian.
I have a feeling we may be seeing a bit more of the classic cinematic Bond in the next film, but don't expect a Connery clone.
Getting back to the initial question in the first post, Daniel Craig has a real talent for action and stunts. He's a physical actor. He hurls himself into physical challenges like no one else I've seen in the movies.
The action is important in Bond films, but I'm more interested in the story. Plot and characters matter. Good writing matters to me more than action scenes. One should never assume that action scenes are the only things that audiences care about.
But the truth is any reasonably athletic actor can do the same action scenes and stunts if he has the training. It's nothing special or unique. The real distinction is in how he interprets the role and what he brings to it. Craig is a persuasive and compelling actor, but he has failed to display a grasp of James Bond. I don't know who he's playing in the Bond films, but it isn't James Bond. Not really. He's got the name but internally, emotionally, he's playing someone else. In SKYFALL he is morose and dejected. That's not James Bond for any time. I appreciate Craig as an actor but I enjoy his non-Bond films a
Richard
Craig is playing Bond relative to how the script's are characterizing him. From my limited perspective, the literary Bond was no barrel of laughes (not that Craig's Bond is a direct interpretation of that either).
The rebooted Bond has a different military background than the past cinematic Bonds (Connery, Moore, et al) had been Naval Intelligence Officers; Craig's Bond was in SBS and entered the intelligence world as a civilian.
I have a feeling we may be seeing a bit more of the classic cinematic Bond in the next film, but don't expect a Connery clone.
I think we are set up for that, my slight gripe is did it really need three films and six years to get here?
Getting back to the initial question in the first post, Daniel Craig has a real talent for action and stunts. He's a physical actor. He hurls himself into physical challenges like no one else I've seen in the movies.
The action is important in Bond films, but I'm more interested in the story. Plot and characters matter. Good writing matters to me more than action scenes. One should never assume that action scenes are the only things that audiences care about.
But the truth is any reasonably athletic actor can do the same action scenes and stunts if he has the training. It's nothing special or unique. The real distinction is in how he interprets the role and what he brings to it. Craig is a persuasive and compelling actor, but he has failed to display a grasp of James Bond. I don't know who he's playing in the Bond films, but it isn't James Bond. Not really. He's got the name but internally, emotionally, he's playing someone else. In SKYFALL he is morose and dejected. That's not James Bond for any time. I appreciate Craig as an actor but I enjoy his non-Bond films a
Richard
Craig is playing Bond relative to how the script's are characterizing him. From my limited perspective, the literary Bond was no barrel of laughes (not that Craig's Bond is a direct interpretation of that either).
The rebooted Bond has a different military background than the past cinematic Bonds (Connery, Moore, et al) had been Naval Intelligence Officers; Craig's Bond was in SBS and entered the intelligence world as a civilian.
I have a feeling we may be seeing a bit more of the classic cinematic Bond in the next film, but don't expect a Connery clone.
I think we are set up for that, my slight gripe is did it really need three films and six years to get here?
IMO making QOS entirely a direct sequel to CR instead of wrapping up CR in an extended 1/2hr QOS PTS and then doing a "5 years later" ala GE along with the unplanned delay is the culprit.
I grew up with Brosnan and Goldeneye is my favourite film though I think the other films PB did aren't classics, especially DAD! When it came to picking the new Bond, I, like I'm sure some of you were, felt apprehensive about Craig's appointment. However, I think he's done/doing a good job and has brought something new and fresh to the role.
Bond has had to adapt over the years and each director has brought his own new spin on things as has each new actor. I doubt Bond would've had the longevity it has if each film and actor just copied their predecessors. People would get bored and Bond would flop.
Craig has come in and revitalised the franchise and his films have had huge success and for that we should all be praising him.
As to who will replace him, and to the original message of this thread (I think) I don't see anyone out there who really stands out. I suppose with Craig contracted to do the next two, we don't have to worry about that for a bit!
"You are about to wake when you dream that you are dreaming"
Getting back to the initial question in the first post, Daniel Craig has a real talent for action and stunts. He's a physical actor. He hurls himself into physical challenges like no one else I've seen in the movies.
The action is important in Bond films, but I'm more interested in the story. Plot and characters matter. Good writing matters to me more than action scenes. One should never assume that action scenes are the only things that audiences care about.
But the truth is any reasonably athletic actor can do the same action scenes and stunts if he has the training. It's nothing special or unique. The real distinction is in how he interprets the role and what he brings to it. Craig is a persuasive and compelling actor, but he has failed to display a grasp of James Bond. I don't know who he's playing in the Bond films, but it isn't James Bond. Not really. He's got the name but internally, emotionally, he's playing someone else. In SKYFALL he is morose and dejected. That's not James Bond for any time. I appreciate Craig as an actor but I enjoy his non-Bond films a lot more.
Richard
Yes, he is good Bourne clone but little more. This is not his fault, but the producers.
"And if I told you that I'm from the Ministry of Defence?" James Bond - The Property of a Lady
To really get back to the initial question: Craig had close to zero background as an action star prior to Casino Royale. The closest he came to play an action hero was in Layer Cake or Munich, movies that can hardly be described as action films.
The reason why he's been cast is the same as for all his predecessors: he looks RUGGED. That's pretty much the only criteria the producers are looking for in a Bond candidate. That's why Lazenby was cast although he didn't have any acting training, why Ewan McGregor never would've worked as Bond, and why some people want Jason Statham in the role (a disastrous choice in my book).
Now, to answer the question: among the young generation, I think Luke Evans is the closest equivalent to a Craig type Bond (although I'd still really love to see Benedict Cumberbatch tackle the part).
The Bourne comparison is just lazy, IMO. Craig brings much more to the role than just his physicality. The conflicted, uncertain nature of Bond's entry into the world of Double-Os really comes through in his performance, as well as Bond's sometimes unbridled arrogance and his vulnerability. These are aspects of Bond's character that have been missing from the performances of the prior actors, by and large, and I enjoy the fact that these elements have been added to the portrayal.
Getting back to the initial question in the first post, Daniel Craig has a real talent for action and stunts. He's a physical actor. He hurls himself into physical challenges like no one else I've seen in the movies.
The action is important in Bond films, but I'm more interested in the story. Plot and characters matter. Good writing matters to me more than action scenes. One should never assume that action scenes are the only things that audiences care about.
But the truth is any reasonably athletic actor can do the same action scenes and stunts if he has the training. It's nothing special or unique. The real distinction is in how he interprets the role and what he brings to it. Craig is a persuasive and compelling actor, but he has failed to display a grasp of James Bond. I don't know who he's playing in the Bond films, but it isn't James Bond. Not really. He's got the name but internally, emotionally, he's playing someone else. In SKYFALL he is morose and dejected. That's not James Bond for any time. I appreciate Craig as an actor but I enjoy his non-Bond films a lot more.
Richard
Yes, he is good Bourne clone but little more. This is not his fault, but the producers.
Lets end this Bourne thing now. Bond is not a clone of Bourne - it's the reverse. Almost all action/spy films or novels that have come out since the 60's owe their success and nature to EON's Bond. Rebooting with Craig and using CR as the template was EON's way of getting the character back to Fleming's brutal version; little, if any gadgets, real characters with emotions and more peeks into Bond's psyche and history. It should have been done with the beginning of OHMSS, but they decided to stick with the superhero they had created instead of the flesh and blood Bond who bleeds. QOS was off because the script needed more rewrites and the directing and editing was bad. Skyfall got it back on the road and hopefully Craig and the producers will keep this quality up by picking the right directors and actors and maintaining the integrity of the scripts. I've seen the film three times and CR multiple times, unlike QOS. As far as Craig's take on Bond - Bond is not morose or dejected? No, the original EON creation was not - but Fleming's Bond was on many occasions. He was licensed to kill, but he did not enjoy it unless it was out of revenge (as when he got Mr. Big for maiming Leiter). He was not really not himself after his wife's murder and thought about quitting his job on occasion - even had internal moral battles at the end of the CR novel. As far as Craigs acting intepretation of the role, it can be argued forever whether he's doing it right or not because to me that's pretty much a personal opinion, but I agree about Dench. I never liked how the writers have put her in so many scenes and centered the films around her relationship with Craig, anymore that I liked having Q and the previous M.s showing up in the field for a one on one with Bond. This did not happen in the novels nor does it reflect real espionage. Okay, the plots and villains were exaggerated - not the methods and bureaucracy of the business. M. was never the centerpiece of the stories - even when Bond tried to kill him, and the real M. or real Director of the CIA do not have meetings with their undercover agents during a mission or give them directions on how to carry it out in real time by satellite. It's done with special forces operations, but NOT with undercover agents. That's something COS Tanner would handle and even he would still do it from London and certainly not while the agent in in the middle of a chase. I understand the whole point of this film was about Dench and Bardem's revenge and giving her as much screen time as possible because she was leaving the series. At least she is gone now and hopefully we won't have Fiennes talking to Craig in his earpiece in the next film - or visiting him in the field, and perhaps with the next film it will keep Craig and the new villain as the centerpieces - leaving the other characters in the background where they belong.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Lets end this Bourne thing now. Bond is not a clone of Bourne - it's the reverse. Almost all action/spy films or novels that have come out since the 60's owe their success and nature to EON's Bond. Rebooting with Craig and using CR as the template was EON's way of getting the character back to Fleming's brutal version; little, if any gadgets, real characters with emotions and more peeks into Bond's psyche and history.
Now, now, now. Any Bond fan who has followed the history of the series knows that it generated as sensational amount of spy copycats since, and continues to this day, including Bourne (particularly the novel, the Bourne Identity) ...but are you saying that it's impossible, or even unlikely that CR and QoS didn't receive any inspiration from the Bourne movies? Is it impossible to receive "reverse inspiration"? Was the rooftop chase and car chase in QoS just fantastic coincidences? Was it coincidence that the action vehicle supervisor for QoS is the same action vehicle supervisor for the earlier Bourne Supremacy? Was it coincidence that the "go car" stunt rig was used for both movies? The Bond producers do not live in a vacuum and being the "first" doesn't automatically guarantee consistent and perpetual originality.
Even Fleming borrowed heavily from other influences such as the pulp adventures from his boyhood...and the EON producers weren't exactly operating in the creative vacuum I mentioned, as fans of Alfred Hitchcock and Hugh Hefner will tell you. As far as "going back to Fleming," I still don't understand Bond fans who make the magical, conceptual leap that a Bond without gadgets or formula is automatically Fleming. The same argument can be used for Bourne, who is "character driven," who doesn't use Q-branch gadgets, who bleeds, shivers and is vulnerable in so many other ways...ergo, Jason Bourne must be Fleming's Bond ...but of course he's not, LOL. However, my challenge still stands, please somone explain with specifics how Craig's Bond is Fleming's Bond?
"...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.....
None of the actors are Fleming's Bond, imo. They're all different Bonds. Films are never the same as the books on which they are based, as the literary bond looks different in each reader's mind's eye. Not so with a cinematic Bond.
I like Dalton, myself, as I find him to be very sincere and I enjoy both the films immensely. I am also of the opinion that more films should be 15 or 18 certificate. Obviously, not as much money is made from non-PG films, but a book can have gratuitous violence and detailed sex scenes, and not be censored to the level of film (ties in to the above statement of literature being different to film).
I think I will always prefer the books to the films, but Craig does a pretty good job. I think Casino Royale and QoS are his best to date. I am going to see Skyfall again, but right now, I find it to be like a re-used teabag. It just wasn't strong enough for me. When he first talks to Severine, I thought things were really getting going... heating up. After the excellent scene (she really was stellar) in the casino, things went downhill rather quickly, for me.
"It is better to be as well dressed as possible to stave off, at least for a very little bit, the total collapse of civilization"
Lets end this Bourne thing now. Bond is not a clone of Bourne - it's the reverse. Almost all action/spy films or novels that have come out since the 60's owe their success and nature to EON's Bond. Rebooting with Craig and using CR as the template was EON's way of getting the character back to Fleming's brutal version; little, if any gadgets, real characters with emotions and more peeks into Bond's psyche and history.
Now, now, now. Any Bond fan who has followed the history of the series knows that it generated as sensational amount of spy copycats since, and continues to this day, including Bourne (particularly the novel, the Bourne Identity) ...but are you saying that it's impossible, or even unlikely that CR and QoS didn't receive any inspiration from the Bourne movies? Is it impossible to receive "reverse inspiration"? Was the rooftop chase and car chase in QoS just fantastic coincidences? Was it coincidence that the action vehicle supervisor for QoS is the same action vehicle supervisor for the earlier Bourne Supremacy? Was it coincidence that the "go car" stunt rig was used for both movies? The Bond producers do not live in a vacuum and being the "first" doesn't automatically guarantee consistent and perpetual originality.
Even Fleming borrowed heavily from other influences such as the pulp adventures from his boyhood...and the EON producers weren't exactly operating in the creative vacuum I mentioned, as fans of Alfred Hitchcock and Hugh Hefner will tell you. As far as "going back to Fleming," I still don't understand Bond fans who make the magical, conceptual leap that a Bond without gadgets or formula is automatically Fleming. The same argument can be used for Bourne, who is "character driven," who doesn't use Q-branch gadgets, who bleeds, shivers and is vulnerable in so many other ways...ergo, Jason Bourne must be Fleming's Bond ...but of course he's not, LOL. However, my challenge still stands, please somone explain with specifics how Craig's Bond is Fleming's Bond?
I have been thinking about this a lot.Anyone who has had the misfortune to read my posts will be unsurprised to find that my attitude towards Craig as Bond is not straightforward.it's nowhere near as binary as 'pro' or 'anti' I enjoy this Forum a good deal, and value sharing and learning. I do get frustrated that discussion often gets polarised into having to be clearly in one group or the other. At the centre seems to be the issue of Flemings Bond and how close to it Daniel is or is not.
Fleming famously and mischievously referred to his creation as 'blunt instruement' and a silhouette. I think this is wrong, and that to endure as he has Bond must be more than that, otherwise he is just a dull tough guy. it's the contradictions that make him. Yes he is a killer, but one with a strong moral compass.He can pass for a gentlemen, but can be as hard as nails.
For me Craig is and always will be a gifted character actor, but Bond is a leading man in cinematic terms. My problem with Daniel is that he absolutely nails the Blunt instrument element, but gives me no sense of the necessary refinement which makes the character interesting.I'm coming to the conclusion that this is now a different character and unrelated to what has gone before. The problem is that I do not know what motivates this character. Hitherto Bond has always taken pleasure where and when he can. He enjoys clothes, food, and beautiful women.
I have no idea what CraigBond enjoys, his life just seems unremittingly grim.
We are now set up for a more fully rounded interpretation post Skyfall, it' just a shame that it has taken sooooooo long to get here. Can Daniel pull this off ? Possibly although for me grossly miscast ( against the blueprint ) he is so good he can almost make me forget.
To summarise I think it depends upon how seriously you take the ' Blunt instruement' schtick.
If you think that this is an acceptably accurate description then Daniel is Flemings Bond.
Lets end this Bourne thing now. Bond is not a clone of Bourne - it's the reverse. Almost all action/spy films or novels that have come out since the 60's owe their success and nature to EON's Bond. Rebooting with Craig and using CR as the template was EON's way of getting the character back to Fleming's brutal version; little, if any gadgets, real characters with emotions and more peeks into Bond's psyche and history.
Now, now, now. Any Bond fan who has followed the history of the series knows that it generated as sensational amount of spy copycats since, and continues to this day, including Bourne (particularly the novel, the Bourne Identity) ...but are you saying that it's impossible, or even unlikely that CR and QoS didn't receive any inspiration from the Bourne movies? Is it impossible to receive "reverse inspiration"? Was the rooftop chase and car chase in QoS just fantastic coincidences? Was it coincidence that the action vehicle supervisor for QoS is the same action vehicle supervisor for the earlier Bourne Supremacy? Was it coincidence that the "go car" stunt rig was used for both movies? The Bond producers do not live in a vacuum and being the "first" doesn't automatically guarantee consistent and perpetual originality.
Even Fleming borrowed heavily from other influences such as the pulp adventures from his boyhood...and the EON producers weren't exactly operating in the creative vacuum I mentioned, as fans of Alfred Hitchcock and Hugh Hefner will tell you. As far as "going back to Fleming," I still don't understand Bond fans who make the magical, conceptual leap that a Bond without gadgets or formula is automatically Fleming. The same argument can be used for Bourne, who is "character driven," who doesn't use Q-branch gadgets, who bleeds, shivers and is vulnerable in so many other ways...ergo, Jason Bourne must be Fleming's Bond ...but of course he's not, LOL. However, my challenge still stands, please somone explain with specifics how Craig's Bond is Fleming's Bond?
I have been thinking about this a lot.Anyone who has had the misfortune to read my posts will be unsurprised to find that my attitude towards Craig as Bond is not straightforward.it's nowhere near as binary as 'pro' or 'anti' I enjoy this Forum a good deal, and value sharing and learning. I do get frustrated that discussion often gets polarised into having to be clearly in one group or the other. At the centre seems to be the issue of Flemings Bond and how close to it Daniel is or is not.
Fleming famously and mischievously referred to his creation as 'blunt instruement' and a silhouette. I think this is wrong, and that to endure as he has Bond must be more than that, otherwise he is just a dull tough guy. it's the contradictions that make him. Yes he is a killer, but one with a strong moral compass.He can pass for a gentlemen, but can be as hard as nails.
For me Craig is and always will be a gifted character actor, but Bond is a leading man in cinematic terms. My problem with Daniel is that he absolutely nails the Blunt instrument element, but gives me no sense of the necessary refinement which makes the character interesting.I'm coming to the conclusion that this is now a different character and unrelated to what has gone before. The problem is that I do not know what motivates this character. Hitherto Bond has always taken pleasure where and when he can. He enjoys clothes, food, and beautiful women.
I have no idea what CraigBond enjoys, his life just seems unremittingly grim.
We are now set up for a more fully rounded interpretation post Skyfall, it' just a shame that it has taken sooooooo long to get here. Can Daniel pull this off ? Possibly although for me grossly miscast ( against the blueprint ) he is so good he can almost make me forget.
To summarise I think it depends upon how seriously you take the ' Blunt instruement' schtick.
If you think that this is an acceptably accurate description then Daniel is Flemings Bond.
I think when Fleming was using the blunt instrument description he was referring to Bond's job, not to Bond's character. He was trying to imply that the 00's were created as the action arm of the Service - agents who were not only spies but who could also serve as saboteurs and assassins. As far as Craig not being refined, well that's true if compared to the previous Bonds - though I don't think Connery was refined either, which is why people compare the two. Is the novel Bond more refined? Perhaps, though we have to remember that the cinematic Bond was separated from the novel Bond long ago, and even the novel Bond was not the typical refined gentleman of his class - he was kicked out of Eton like Fleming was and was forced to finish his education back in Scotland and apparently the Service saw his slight lack of refinement and being an orphan as useful credentials as a future agent. As far as making Bond more interesting and what makes him tick, I think that's what CR was all about. Vesper's death and what seemed like a betrayal and the whole nature of the mission changed him. He started out seeing it as a black and white stop the bad guys mission and it then became this political grey reality. He realized that after surviving he proved to himself he was good at the job and could be usefull in protecting his country, but in order to do so he would have to always have his "armor on" during his missions. Since the films only show him ON his missions, we rarely get to see him being emotionally vulnerable. I hope they will write more scenes in future films showing a little more of Bond's personal life and or past so that Craig is given the chance to make him even more human.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Fleming famously and mischievously referred to his creation as 'blunt instruement' and a silhouette. I think this is wrong, and that to endure as he has Bond must be more than that, otherwise he is just a dull tough guy. it's the contradictions that make him. Yes he is a killer, but one with a strong moral compass.He can pass for a gentlemen, but can be as hard as nails.
We are now set up for a more fully rounded interpretation post Skyfall, it' just a shame that it has taken sooooooo long to get here. Can Daniel pull this off ? Possibly although for me grossly miscast ( against the blueprint ) he is so good he can almost make me forget.
To summarise I think it depends upon how seriously you take the ' Blunt instruement' schtick.
If you think that this is an acceptably accurate description then Daniel is Flemings Bond.
Sorry to be one to make a stink in these debates, as I've felt compelled to step in with my 2 cents in the middle of this great DC lovefest that's been going on, esp. when it seemed to me to be flying against reason. Yes, I agree that though Fleming made those declarations about Bond being a blunt instrument and a cipher, aware of it or not he wrote Bond with his own voice so to speak, fleshing him out vicariously with his own attitudes, likes, dislikes, mannerisms, etc. and Fleming himself was no slouch.
I also agree and am right there with you that DC is miscast but because he's very good, I've "let go" of my reservations enough to enjoy the show. That's an interesting premise you put there, though, about the blunt instrument, which in itself grossly misrepresents the totality of Bond in the novels as it reflected more of M's attitude toward his purpose but not his character, but why it's of such significance because it has become the lynchpin and mantra of the reboot effort; the typical fan reaction is "Whoa, they've nailed "Bond as the "blunt instrument" thing, nothing short of a stroke of sheer genius by EON!" ...then comes the conceptual leap, "Ergo, Craig is Fleming's Bond!" )
As far as Craig not being refined, well that's true if compared to the previous Bonds - though I don't think Connery was refined either, which is why people compare the two. Is the novel Bond more refined? Perhaps, though we have to remember that the cinematic Bond was separated from the novel Bond long ago, and even the novel Bond was not the typical refined gentleman of his class...
As I've responded to Zaphod, I agree with both of you about the "blunt instrument" misconception. However, I wouldn't go as far as putting Craig and Connery at par for the quality of refinement. One of the many phenomena I've observed since DC has taken over the mantle of Bond, is that in response to detractors his supporters will attempt to blur whatever standard he's being accused of not meeting, e.g., "handsome," "classical Bond-ness," and particularly here, "refinement." Connery and the Literary Bond were not fops so to speak, nor would they be "genteel" along the lines of titled gentlemen (not that I've met any) or in fiction, maybe someone like John Steed. Connery certainly portrayed a modern "gent" with an undeniably healthy measure of refinement and in terms of impression, relatively more than Craig, IMO. Believe me, however, that that's not a knock on him but an observable quality that I welcome for this Bond of this age, though I also look forward the possibility of a future actor who can do a "proper" Bond that perfectly blends the needed cinematic qualities to keep up with the times (like what Connery did), with those hallmark qualities characterized in Fleming's writings that made the Literary Bond very interesting and highly appealing to readers, and maybe also the physical qualities of Bond in the books that are actually important to some readers.
"...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.....
Fleming famously and mischievously referred to his creation as 'blunt instruement' and a silhouette. I think this is wrong, and that to endure as he has Bond must be more than that, otherwise he is just a dull tough guy. it's the contradictions that make him. Yes he is a killer, but one with a strong moral compass.He can pass for a gentlemen, but can be as hard as nails.
We are now set up for a more fully rounded interpretation post Skyfall, it' just a shame that it has taken sooooooo long to get here. Can Daniel pull this off ? Possibly although for me grossly miscast ( against the blueprint ) he is so good he can almost make me forget.
To summarise I think it depends upon how seriously you take the ' Blunt instruement' schtick.
If you think that this is an acceptably accurate description then Daniel is Flemings Bond.
Sorry to be one to make a stink in these debates, as I've felt compelled to step in with my 2 cents in the middle of this great DC lovefest that's been going on, esp. when it seemed to me to be flying against reason. Yes, I agree that though Fleming made those declarations about Bond being a blunt instrument and a cipher, aware of it or not he wrote Bond with his own voice so to speak, fleshing him out vicariously with his own attitudes, likes, dislikes, mannerisms, etc. and Fleming himself was no slouch.
I also agree and am right there with you that DC is miscast but because he's very good, I've "let go" of my reservations enough to enjoy the show. That's an interesting premise you put there, though, about the blunt instrument, which in itself grossly misrepresents the totality of Bond in the novels as it reflected more of M's attitude toward his purpose but not his character, but why it's of such significance because it has become the lynchpin and mantra of the reboot effort; the typical fan reaction is "Whoa, they've nailed "Bond as the "blunt instrument" thing, nothing short of a stroke of sheer genius by EON!" ...then comes the conceptual leap, "Ergo, Craig is Fleming's Bond!" )
As far as Craig not being refined, well that's true if compared to the previous Bonds - though I don't think Connery was refined either, which is why people compare the two. Is the novel Bond more refined? Perhaps, though we have to remember that the cinematic Bond was separated from the novel Bond long ago, and even the novel Bond was not the typical refined gentleman of his class...
As I've responded to Zaphod, I agree with both of you about the "blunt instrument" misconception. However, I wouldn't go as far as putting Craig and Connery at par for the quality of refinement. One of the many phenomena I've observed since DC has taken over the mantle of Bond, is that in response to detractors his supporters will attempt to blur whatever standard he's being accused of not meeting, e.g., "handsome," "classical Bond-ness," and particularly here, "refinement." Connery and the Literary Bond were not fops so to speak, nor would they be "genteel" along the lines of titled gentlemen (not that I've met any) or in fiction, maybe someone like John Steed. Connery certainly portrayed a modern "gent" with an undeniably healthy measure of refinement and in terms of impression, relatively more than Craig, IMO. Believe me, however, that that's not a knock on him but an observable quality that I welcome for this Bond of this age, though I also look forward the possibility of a future actor who can do a "proper" Bond that perfectly blends the needed cinematic qualities to keep up with the times (like what Connery did), with those hallmark qualities characterized in Fleming's writings that made the Literary Bond very interesting and highly appealing to readers, and maybe also the physical qualities of Bond in the books that are actually important to some readers.
I look forward to this too. Though I was relieved when the producers rebooted the series with a more realistic style and I like that Craig and the writers have given Bond back his human dimension, I am not one of those Craig fans who make him as the best Bond - mainly due to his physical differences with Fleming's character. For me, Dalton will always be the closest. If they can find
a future actor who looks more like Bond but can keep the real human dimension in, it will be another boost for the series.
Fleming famously and mischievously referred to his creation as 'blunt instruement' and a silhouette. I think this is wrong, and that to endure as he has Bond must be more than that, otherwise he is just a dull tough guy. it's the contradictions that make him. Yes he is a killer, but one with a strong moral compass.He can pass for a gentlemen, but can be as hard as nails.
We are now set up for a more fully rounded interpretation post Skyfall, it' just a shame that it has taken sooooooo long to get here. Can Daniel pull this off ? Possibly although for me grossly miscast ( against the blueprint ) he is so good he can almost make me forget.
To summarise I think it depends upon how seriously you take the ' Blunt instruement' schtick.
If you think that this is an acceptably accurate description then Daniel is Flemings Bond.
Sorry to be one to make a stink in these debates, as I've felt compelled to step in with my 2 cents in the middle of this great DC lovefest that's been going on, esp. when it seemed to me to be flying against reason. Yes, I agree that though Fleming made those declarations about Bond being a blunt instrument and a cipher, aware of it or not he wrote Bond with his own voice so to speak, fleshing him out vicariously with his own attitudes, likes, dislikes, mannerisms, etc. and Fleming himself was no slouch.
I also agree and am right there with you that DC is miscast but because he's very good, I've "let go" of my reservations enough to enjoy the show. That's an interesting premise you put there, though, about the blunt instrument, which in itself grossly misrepresents the totality of Bond in the novels as it reflected more of M's attitude toward his purpose but not his character, but why it's of such significance because it has become the lynchpin and mantra of the reboot effort; the typical fan reaction is "Whoa, they've nailed "Bond as the "blunt instrument" thing, nothing short of a stroke of sheer genius by EON!" ...then comes the conceptual leap, "Ergo, Craig is Fleming's Bond!" )
As far as Craig not being refined, well that's true if compared to the previous Bonds - though I don't think Connery was refined either, which is why people compare the two. Is the novel Bond more refined? Perhaps, though we have to remember that the cinematic Bond was separated from the novel Bond long ago, and even the novel Bond was not the typical refined gentleman of his class...
As I've responded to Zaphod, I agree with both of you about the "blunt instrument" misconception. However, I wouldn't go as far as putting Craig and Connery at par for the quality of refinement. One of the many phenomena I've observed since DC has taken over the mantle of Bond, is that in response to detractors his supporters will attempt to blur whatever standard he's being accused of not meeting, e.g., "handsome," "classical Bond-ness," and particularly here, "refinement." Connery and the Literary Bond were not fops so to speak, nor would they be "genteel" along the lines of titled gentlemen (not that I've met any) or in fiction, maybe someone like John Steed. Connery certainly portrayed a modern "gent" with an undeniably healthy measure of refinement and in terms of impression, relatively more than Craig, IMO. Believe me, however, that that's not a knock on him but an observable quality that I welcome for this Bond of this age, though I also look forward the possibility of a future actor who can do a "proper" Bond that perfectly blends the needed cinematic qualities to keep up with the times (like what Connery did), with those hallmark qualities characterized in Fleming's writings that made the Literary Bond very interesting and highly appealing to readers, and maybe also the physical qualities of Bond in the books that are actually important to some readers.
I look forward to this too. Though I was relieved when the producers rebooted the series with a more realistic style and I like that Craig and the writers have given Bond back his human dimension, I am not one of those Craig fans who make him as the best Bond - mainly due to his physical differences with Fleming's character. For me, Dalton will always be the closest. If they can find
a future actor who looks more like Bond but can keep the real human dimension in, it will be another boost for the series.
I'm loathe to perpetuate, but will keep it brief. Dalton is 'my Bond' as well, but I see no reason why Daniel could not approximate some of his gravitas. As stated in my earlier post Craig is essentially a fine character actor playing a leading man. For me of equal importance is understanding what he takes pleasure in, with all the other Bonds you get a sense of them enjoying a fast car, or the company of a glamourous women.With Daniel I get no sense of this at all. He occasionally has sex, but seems to take no pleasure in it. Daniel could do this if he wished, but as this is no longer the same character as Commander Bond but an SBS hard nut of the same name. This must be by choice. I am finding my interest waiting in waiting for the fully formed article to emerge. Three films in and we are no closer to it, so I for one am getting bored as this guy is just a Cipher.
Fleming famously and mischievously referred to his creation as 'blunt instruement' and a silhouette. I think this is wrong, and that to endure as he has Bond must be more than that, otherwise he is just a dull tough guy. it's the contradictions that make him. Yes he is a killer, but one with a strong moral compass.He can pass for a gentlemen, but can be as hard as nails.
We are now set up for a more fully rounded interpretation post Skyfall, it' just a shame that it has taken sooooooo long to get here. Can Daniel pull this off ? Possibly although for me grossly miscast ( against the blueprint ) he is so good he can almost make me forget.
To summarise I think it depends upon how seriously you take the ' Blunt instruement' schtick.
If you think that this is an acceptably accurate description then Daniel is Flemings Bond.
Sorry to be one to make a stink in these debates, as I've felt compelled to step in with my 2 cents in the middle of this great DC lovefest that's been going on, esp. when it seemed to me to be flying against reason. Yes, I agree that though Fleming made those declarations about Bond being a blunt instrument and a cipher, aware of it or not he wrote Bond with his own voice so to speak, fleshing him out vicariously with his own attitudes, likes, dislikes, mannerisms, etc. and Fleming himself was no slouch.
I also agree and am right there with you that DC is miscast but because he's very good, I've "let go" of my reservations enough to enjoy the show. That's an interesting premise you put there, though, about the blunt instrument, which in itself grossly misrepresents the totality of Bond in the novels as it reflected more of M's attitude toward his purpose but not his character, but why it's of such significance because it has become the lynchpin and mantra of the reboot effort; the typical fan reaction is "Whoa, they've nailed "Bond as the "blunt instrument" thing, nothing short of a stroke of sheer genius by EON!" ...then comes the conceptual leap, "Ergo, Craig is Fleming's Bond!" )
As far as Craig not being refined, well that's true if compared to the previous Bonds - though I don't think Connery was refined either, which is why people compare the two. Is the novel Bond more refined? Perhaps, though we have to remember that the cinematic Bond was separated from the novel Bond long ago, and even the novel Bond was not the typical refined gentleman of his class...
As I've responded to Zaphod, I agree with both of you about the "blunt instrument" misconception. However, I wouldn't go as far as putting Craig and Connery at par for the quality of refinement. One of the many phenomena I've observed since DC has taken over the mantle of Bond, is that in response to detractors his supporters will attempt to blur whatever standard he's being accused of not meeting, e.g., "handsome," "classical Bond-ness," and particularly here, "refinement." Connery and the Literary Bond were not fops so to speak, nor would they be "genteel" along the lines of titled gentlemen (not that I've met any) or in fiction, maybe someone like John Steed. Connery certainly portrayed a modern "gent" with an undeniably healthy measure of refinement and in terms of impression, relatively more than Craig, IMO. Believe me, however, that that's not a knock on him but an observable quality that I welcome for this Bond of this age, though I also look forward the possibility of a future actor who can do a "proper" Bond that perfectly blends the needed cinematic qualities to keep up with the times (like what Connery did), with those hallmark qualities characterized in Fleming's writings that made the Literary Bond very interesting and highly appealing to readers, and maybe also the physical qualities of Bond in the books that are actually important to some readers.
I look forward to this too. Though I was relieved when the producers rebooted the series with a more realistic style and I like that Craig and the writers have given Bond back his human dimension, I am not one of those Craig fans who make him as the best Bond - mainly due to his physical differences with Fleming's character. For me, Dalton will always be the closest. If they can find
a future actor who looks more like Bond but can keep the real human dimension in, it will be another boost for the series.
I'm loathe to perpetuate, but will keep it brief. Dalton is 'my Bond' as well, but I see no reason why Daniel could not approximate some of his gravitas. As stated in my earlier post Craig is essentially a fine character actor playing a leading man. For me of equal importance is understanding what he takes pleasure in, with all the other Bonds you get a sense of them enjoying a fast car, or the company of a glamourous women.With Daniel I get no sense of this at all. He occasionally has sex, but seems to take no pleasure in it. Daniel could do this if he wished, but as this is no longer the same character as Commander Bond but an SBS hard nut of the same name. This must be by choice. I am finding my interest waining waiting for the fully formed article to emerge. Three films in and we are no closer to it, so I for one am getting bored as this guy is just a Cipher.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Some great observations, superado. -{
Which I think are spot on and much better
written that anything I could of done.
Thanks, TP, I'm glad you've enjoyed my posts!
"...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.....
Sorry to be one to make a stink in these debates, as I've felt compelled to step in with my 2 cents in the middle of this great DC lovefest that's been going on, esp. when it seemed to me to be flying against reason. Yes, I agree that though Fleming made those declarations about Bond being a blunt instrument and a cipher, aware of it or not he wrote Bond with his own voice so to speak, fleshing him out vicariously with his own attitudes, likes, dislikes, mannerisms, etc. and Fleming himself was no slouch.
I also agree and am right there with you that DC is miscast but because he's very good, I've "let go" of my reservations enough to enjoy the show. That's an interesting premise you put there, though, about the blunt instrument, which in itself grossly misrepresents the totality of Bond in the novels as it reflected more of M's attitude toward his purpose but not his character, but why it's of such significance because it has become the lynchpin and mantra of the reboot effort; the typical fan reaction is "Whoa, they've nailed "Bond as the "blunt instrument" thing, nothing short of a stroke of sheer genius by EON!" ...then comes the conceptual leap, "Ergo, Craig is Fleming's Bond!" )
As I've responded to Zaphod, I agree with both of you about the "blunt instrument" misconception. However, I wouldn't go as far as putting Craig and Connery at par for the quality of refinement. One of the many phenomena I've observed since DC has taken over the mantle of Bond, is that in response to detractors his supporters will attempt to blur whatever standard he's being accused of not meeting, e.g., "handsome," "classical Bond-ness," and particularly here, "refinement." Connery and the Literary Bond were not fops so to speak, nor would they be "genteel" along the lines of titled gentlemen (not that I've met any) or in fiction, maybe someone like John Steed. Connery certainly portrayed a modern "gent" with an undeniably healthy measure of refinement and in terms of impression, relatively more than Craig, IMO. Believe me, however, that that's not a knock on him but an observable quality that I welcome for this Bond of this age, though I also look forward the possibility of a future actor who can do a "proper" Bond that perfectly blends the needed cinematic qualities to keep up with the times (like what Connery did), with those hallmark qualities characterized in Fleming's writings that made the Literary Bond very interesting and highly appealing to readers, and maybe also the physical qualities of Bond in the books that are actually important to some readers.
I look forward to this too. Though I was relieved when the producers rebooted the series with a more realistic style and I like that Craig and the writers have given Bond back his human dimension, I am not one of those Craig fans who make him as the best Bond - mainly due to his physical differences with Fleming's character. For me, Dalton will always be the closest. If they can find
a future actor who looks more like Bond but can keep the real human dimension in, it will be another boost for the series.
I'm loathe to perpetuate, but will keep it brief. Dalton is 'my Bond' as well, but I see no reason why Daniel could not approximate some of his gravitas. As stated in my earlier post Craig is essentially a fine character actor playing a leading man. For me of equal importance is understanding what he takes pleasure in, with all the other Bonds you get a sense of them enjoying a fast car, or the company of a glamourous women.With Daniel I get no sense of this at all. He occasionally has sex, but seems to take no pleasure in it. Daniel could do this if he wished, but as this is no longer the same character as Commander Bond but an SBS hard nut of the same name. This must be by choice. I am finding my interest waiting in waiting for the fully formed article to emerge. Three films in and we are no closer to it, so I for one am getting bored as this guy is just a Cipher.
I have to put that blame on the writers. Daniel could take more pleasure in the things you say, but only if it's written in the scripts. Hopefully, they will allow him to have more enjoyment in the future.
Comments
Craig is playing Bond relative to how the script's are characterizing him. From my limited perspective, the literary Bond was no barrel of laughes (not that Craig's Bond is a direct interpretation of that either).
The rebooted Bond has a different military background than the past cinematic Bonds (Connery, Moore, et al) had been Naval Intelligence Officers; Craig's Bond was in SBS and entered the intelligence world as a civilian.
I have a feeling we may be seeing a bit more of the classic cinematic Bond in the next film, but don't expect a Connery clone.
I think we are set up for that, my slight gripe is did it really need three films and six years to get here?
IMO making QOS entirely a direct sequel to CR instead of wrapping up CR in an extended 1/2hr QOS PTS and then doing a "5 years later" ala GE along with the unplanned delay is the culprit.
Bond has had to adapt over the years and each director has brought his own new spin on things as has each new actor. I doubt Bond would've had the longevity it has if each film and actor just copied their predecessors. People would get bored and Bond would flop.
Craig has come in and revitalised the franchise and his films have had huge success and for that we should all be praising him.
As to who will replace him, and to the original message of this thread (I think) I don't see anyone out there who really stands out. I suppose with Craig contracted to do the next two, we don't have to worry about that for a bit!
Yes, he is good Bourne clone but little more. This is not his fault, but the producers.
The reason why he's been cast is the same as for all his predecessors: he looks RUGGED. That's pretty much the only criteria the producers are looking for in a Bond candidate. That's why Lazenby was cast although he didn't have any acting training, why Ewan McGregor never would've worked as Bond, and why some people want Jason Statham in the role (a disastrous choice in my book).
Now, to answer the question: among the young generation, I think Luke Evans is the closest equivalent to a Craig type Bond (although I'd still really love to see Benedict Cumberbatch tackle the part).
Now, now, now. Any Bond fan who has followed the history of the series knows that it generated as sensational amount of spy copycats since, and continues to this day, including Bourne (particularly the novel, the Bourne Identity) ...but are you saying that it's impossible, or even unlikely that CR and QoS didn't receive any inspiration from the Bourne movies? Is it impossible to receive "reverse inspiration"? Was the rooftop chase and car chase in QoS just fantastic coincidences? Was it coincidence that the action vehicle supervisor for QoS is the same action vehicle supervisor for the earlier Bourne Supremacy? Was it coincidence that the "go car" stunt rig was used for both movies? The Bond producers do not live in a vacuum and being the "first" doesn't automatically guarantee consistent and perpetual originality.
Even Fleming borrowed heavily from other influences such as the pulp adventures from his boyhood...and the EON producers weren't exactly operating in the creative vacuum I mentioned, as fans of Alfred Hitchcock and Hugh Hefner will tell you. As far as "going back to Fleming," I still don't understand Bond fans who make the magical, conceptual leap that a Bond without gadgets or formula is automatically Fleming. The same argument can be used for Bourne, who is "character driven," who doesn't use Q-branch gadgets, who bleeds, shivers and is vulnerable in so many other ways...ergo, Jason Bourne must be Fleming's Bond ...but of course he's not, LOL. However, my challenge still stands, please somone explain with specifics how Craig's Bond is Fleming's Bond?
I like Dalton, myself, as I find him to be very sincere and I enjoy both the films immensely. I am also of the opinion that more films should be 15 or 18 certificate. Obviously, not as much money is made from non-PG films, but a book can have gratuitous violence and detailed sex scenes, and not be censored to the level of film (ties in to the above statement of literature being different to film).
I think I will always prefer the books to the films, but Craig does a pretty good job. I think Casino Royale and QoS are his best to date. I am going to see Skyfall again, but right now, I find it to be like a re-used teabag. It just wasn't strong enough for me. When he first talks to Severine, I thought things were really getting going... heating up. After the excellent scene (she really was stellar) in the casino, things went downhill rather quickly, for me.
I have been thinking about this a lot.Anyone who has had the misfortune to read my posts will be unsurprised to find that my attitude towards Craig as Bond is not straightforward.it's nowhere near as binary as 'pro' or 'anti' I enjoy this Forum a good deal, and value sharing and learning. I do get frustrated that discussion often gets polarised into having to be clearly in one group or the other. At the centre seems to be the issue of Flemings Bond and how close to it Daniel is or is not.
Fleming famously and mischievously referred to his creation as 'blunt instruement' and a silhouette. I think this is wrong, and that to endure as he has Bond must be more than that, otherwise he is just a dull tough guy. it's the contradictions that make him. Yes he is a killer, but one with a strong moral compass.He can pass for a gentlemen, but can be as hard as nails.
For me Craig is and always will be a gifted character actor, but Bond is a leading man in cinematic terms. My problem with Daniel is that he absolutely nails the Blunt instrument element, but gives me no sense of the necessary refinement which makes the character interesting.I'm coming to the conclusion that this is now a different character and unrelated to what has gone before. The problem is that I do not know what motivates this character. Hitherto Bond has always taken pleasure where and when he can. He enjoys clothes, food, and beautiful women.
I have no idea what CraigBond enjoys, his life just seems unremittingly grim.
We are now set up for a more fully rounded interpretation post Skyfall, it' just a shame that it has taken sooooooo long to get here. Can Daniel pull this off ? Possibly although for me grossly miscast ( against the blueprint ) he is so good he can almost make me forget.
To summarise I think it depends upon how seriously you take the ' Blunt instruement' schtick.
If you think that this is an acceptably accurate description then Daniel is Flemings Bond.
I think when Fleming was using the blunt instrument description he was referring to Bond's job, not to Bond's character. He was trying to imply that the 00's were created as the action arm of the Service - agents who were not only spies but who could also serve as saboteurs and assassins. As far as Craig not being refined, well that's true if compared to the previous Bonds - though I don't think Connery was refined either, which is why people compare the two. Is the novel Bond more refined? Perhaps, though we have to remember that the cinematic Bond was separated from the novel Bond long ago, and even the novel Bond was not the typical refined gentleman of his class - he was kicked out of Eton like Fleming was and was forced to finish his education back in Scotland and apparently the Service saw his slight lack of refinement and being an orphan as useful credentials as a future agent. As far as making Bond more interesting and what makes him tick, I think that's what CR was all about. Vesper's death and what seemed like a betrayal and the whole nature of the mission changed him. He started out seeing it as a black and white stop the bad guys mission and it then became this political grey reality. He realized that after surviving he proved to himself he was good at the job and could be usefull in protecting his country, but in order to do so he would have to always have his "armor on" during his missions. Since the films only show him ON his missions, we rarely get to see him being emotionally vulnerable. I hope they will write more scenes in future films showing a little more of Bond's personal life and or past so that Craig is given the chance to make him even more human.
Sorry to be one to make a stink in these debates, as I've felt compelled to step in with my 2 cents in the middle of this great DC lovefest that's been going on, esp. when it seemed to me to be flying against reason. Yes, I agree that though Fleming made those declarations about Bond being a blunt instrument and a cipher, aware of it or not he wrote Bond with his own voice so to speak, fleshing him out vicariously with his own attitudes, likes, dislikes, mannerisms, etc. and Fleming himself was no slouch.
I also agree and am right there with you that DC is miscast but because he's very good, I've "let go" of my reservations enough to enjoy the show. That's an interesting premise you put there, though, about the blunt instrument, which in itself grossly misrepresents the totality of Bond in the novels as it reflected more of M's attitude toward his purpose but not his character, but why it's of such significance because it has become the lynchpin and mantra of the reboot effort; the typical fan reaction is "Whoa, they've nailed "Bond as the "blunt instrument" thing, nothing short of a stroke of sheer genius by EON!" ...then comes the conceptual leap, "Ergo, Craig is Fleming's Bond!"
As I've responded to Zaphod, I agree with both of you about the "blunt instrument" misconception. However, I wouldn't go as far as putting Craig and Connery at par for the quality of refinement. One of the many phenomena I've observed since DC has taken over the mantle of Bond, is that in response to detractors his supporters will attempt to blur whatever standard he's being accused of not meeting, e.g., "handsome," "classical Bond-ness," and particularly here, "refinement." Connery and the Literary Bond were not fops so to speak, nor would they be "genteel" along the lines of titled gentlemen (not that I've met any) or in fiction, maybe someone like John Steed. Connery certainly portrayed a modern "gent" with an undeniably healthy measure of refinement and in terms of impression, relatively more than Craig, IMO. Believe me, however, that that's not a knock on him but an observable quality that I welcome for this Bond of this age, though I also look forward the possibility of a future actor who can do a "proper" Bond that perfectly blends the needed cinematic qualities to keep up with the times (like what Connery did), with those hallmark qualities characterized in Fleming's writings that made the Literary Bond very interesting and highly appealing to readers, and maybe also the physical qualities of Bond in the books that are actually important to some readers.
Which I think are spot on and much better
written that anything I could of done.
I look forward to this too. Though I was relieved when the producers rebooted the series with a more realistic style and I like that Craig and the writers have given Bond back his human dimension, I am not one of those Craig fans who make him as the best Bond - mainly due to his physical differences with Fleming's character. For me, Dalton will always be the closest. If they can find
a future actor who looks more like Bond but can keep the real human dimension in, it will be another boost for the series.
I'm loathe to perpetuate, but will keep it brief. Dalton is 'my Bond' as well, but I see no reason why Daniel could not approximate some of his gravitas. As stated in my earlier post Craig is essentially a fine character actor playing a leading man. For me of equal importance is understanding what he takes pleasure in, with all the other Bonds you get a sense of them enjoying a fast car, or the company of a glamourous women.With Daniel I get no sense of this at all. He occasionally has sex, but seems to take no pleasure in it. Daniel could do this if he wished, but as this is no longer the same character as Commander Bond but an SBS hard nut of the same name. This must be by choice. I am finding my interest waiting in waiting for the fully formed article to emerge. Three films in and we are no closer to it, so I for one am getting bored as this guy is just a Cipher.
I'm loathe to perpetuate, but will keep it brief. Dalton is 'my Bond' as well, but I see no reason why Daniel could not approximate some of his gravitas. As stated in my earlier post Craig is essentially a fine character actor playing a leading man. For me of equal importance is understanding what he takes pleasure in, with all the other Bonds you get a sense of them enjoying a fast car, or the company of a glamourous women.With Daniel I get no sense of this at all. He occasionally has sex, but seems to take no pleasure in it. Daniel could do this if he wished, but as this is no longer the same character as Commander Bond but an SBS hard nut of the same name. This must be by choice. I am finding my interest waining waiting for the fully formed article to emerge. Three films in and we are no closer to it, so I for one am getting bored as this guy is just a Cipher.
I have to put that blame on the writers. Daniel could take more pleasure in the things you say, but only if it's written in the scripts. Hopefully, they will allow him to have more enjoyment in the future.