"Take a look at the cover art for the 50th anniversy Blue ray collection. They had to make Craig taller, leaner, with more hair to make him fit in with the silhouettes of Connery, Moore, Brosnan, Dalton and even what's his name. (i seriously just forgot.)"
'Ol George Lazenby.
thanks buddy! )
And I'm happy they've gone with a shorter guy with less hair for Bond. It means me at 5"11, with Dalton's hairline has a shot now.
I know you are kidding, but when Craig did Bond it DID seem refreshing and it felt like 'any guy' now could play Bond and do it well. Now I just wish we had an actor that actually looks and behaves like Bond.
Petty complaints I know since I should be happy that we have ANY Bond to begin with. Oh, well..
No I think I would rather there be no Bond movies at all than have another Craig debacle.
"Take a look at the cover art for the 50th anniversy Blue ray collection. They had to make Craig taller, leaner, with more hair to make him fit in with the silhouettes of Connery, Moore, Brosnan, Dalton and even what's his name. (i seriously just forgot.)"
'Ol George Lazenby.
thanks buddy! )
And I'm happy they've gone with a shorter guy with less hair for Bond. It means me at 5"11, with Dalton's hairline has a shot now.
I know you are kidding, but when Craig did Bond it DID seem refreshing and it felt like 'any guy' now could play Bond and do it well. Now I just wish we had an actor that actually looks and behaves like Bond.
Petty complaints I know since I should be happy that we have ANY Bond to begin with. Oh, well..
No I think I would rather there be no Bond movies at all than have another Craig debacle.
People are always going to like the older way of things. Can you imagine if Roger Moore was the Bond today? He would have a sea of haters saying he's turned Bond movies into a comedy and how it just doesn't feel like a James Bond movie anymore.
People are always going to like the older way of things. Can you imagine if Roger Moore was the Bond today? He would have a sea of haters saying he's turned Bond movies into a comedy and how it just doesn't feel like a James Bond movie anymore.
"Take a look at the cover art for the 50th anniversy Blue ray collection. They had to make Craig taller, leaner, with more hair to make him fit in with the silhouettes of Connery, Moore, Brosnan, Dalton and even what's his name. (i seriously just forgot.)"
'Ol George Lazenby.
thanks buddy! )
And I'm happy they've gone with a shorter guy with less hair for Bond. It means me at 5"11, with Dalton's hairline has a shot now.
I know you are kidding, but when Craig did Bond it DID seem refreshing and it felt like 'any guy' now could play Bond and do it well. Now I just wish we had an actor that actually looks and behaves like Bond.
Petty complaints I know since I should be happy that we have ANY Bond to begin with. Oh, well..
I am a bit surprised as I thought that we were past this now and concerns re how DC looks had receded like his hairline. I am curious as to why now do we have a flurry of posts about it. Even I had made my piece with the fact that he at his worst looks like a bag of spanners and at his best can just about make me forget how miscast he is.So what is it that is making people concerned about this again? we have just had Skyfall which if not the truly great Bond movie we were hoping for is at least a considerable step up from QOS and for a lot of people a high grossing and high watermark.
I am a bit surprised as I thought that we were past this now and concerns re how DC looks had receded like his hairline. I am curious as to why now do we have a flurry of posts about it. Even I had made my piece with the fact that he at his worst looks like a bag of spanners and at his best can just about make me forget how miscast he is.So what is it that is making people concerned about this again? we have just had Skyfall which if not the truly great Bond movie we were hoping for is at least a considerable step up from QOS and for a lot of people a high grossing and high watermark.
I bring it up because I'm sick of seeing Bad Bond movies touted as the greatest ever. I'm trying desperately to understand what I'm missing because I've never felt this way about Bond movies before. I used to be excited when another Bond movie came out, but now, since the reboot, I couldn't care less. I'm losing a huge part of my childhood thanks to DC and this new direction and they are killing my hero slowly. I really cannot express the pain I feel watching DC turn Bond into the Terminator. And it made worse with every review and record broken, because I know it's going to be used as justification to continue. Honestly, it's like watching Luke go to the Dark Side, or Batman picking up a gun and killing someone because the producers wanted a "New Direction". That's what I see happening and I'm praying you other fans can convince me I'm wrong, that there is something I'm not seeing, that there is hope that Bond will be back.
Look at the cover of the 50 year anniversary collection as an illustration of what I mean: there you see 5 men holding pistols, a precision weapon. DC has a HK mp-50. A spray and pray, submachine gun. The subtlety is gone, everything Bond is gone, and I despair for the future films for the first time in my life.
Read my piece on Craig in another thread, in SF I think.
There is a line from a Jason Stratham film called Parker coming out.
J-Lo complains to him, while they're driving in the car: 'How can you sleep at night?'
He drawls: 'I don't drink coffee after seven...'
Fantastic! But we don't get too many of those things any more, it's like Craig is a more down to earth guy - but my gripe is the films aren't down to earth, they fall back on the Bond iconography more than ever.
People are always going to like the older way of things. Can you imagine if Roger Moore was the Bond today? He would have a sea of haters saying he's turned Bond movies into a comedy and how it just doesn't feel like a James Bond movie anymore.
I agree with Blackleiter that already happened. However, don't confuse JW Pepper with Roger Moore..just because his era contained certain comedic elements doesn't mean that Rog himself played Bond for laughs.
I predict a fairly large majority of fans would cheer if a Roger Moore-like Bond re-appeared and brought back the suave sophisticated secret agent that we all know and love. Roger wanted the audience to have fun, whereas Craig is more of an angry, depressed 007.
In fact Craig reminds me of a friend who recently got out of the Marines. Short hair, muscular build, doesn't talk much, not smooth with the ladies, bouts of depression and anger, and could probably beat your ass in a fight.
That being said, I do hope that Craig does at least 3 more Bond films because I'm interested to see where he will take the character next.
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
I used to be excited when another Bond movie came out, but now, since the reboot, I couldn't care less. I'm losing a huge part of my childhood thanks to DC and this new direction and they are killing my hero slowly.
On a certain level, I feel your pain. But no need to feel like you're losing your childhood- you still have it in your memories and Bond DVD's. :x
For me personally, the classic (& neo-classic) Bonds ended with TWINE. DAD was the final nail in that particular coffin. As soon as I saw CR I realized the Bond of my younger days was forever gone. The world got meaner and so the Bond films had to follow suite. The movies featured heroes that could match the comic book character Daredevil in terms of physicality so the Bond films had to follow suite. Look at Die Hard; John McClane used to be merely a super-tough human being as well- now he AND Bond can BOTH leap off tall buildings in a single bound without breaking a bone.
Take heart, we will always have our favourites from the past.
And in the future, you'll be able to order up Sean Connery in SF or Dalton in CR with the new "Your Favourite Actor" app. -{
I used to be excited when another Bond movie came out, but now, since the reboot, I couldn't care less. I'm losing a huge part of my childhood thanks to DC and this new direction and they are killing my hero slowly.
And I feel I'm getting Bond back...these things tend to go in cycles...you'll get the Bond you prefer back at some stage...but I'm just just enjoying the way DC portrays Bond and the directon the movies are going in...be happy for me )
.you'll get the Bond you prefer back at some stage...
Dalton, Connery & Brosnan were my favourites- none will ever come close to them for me, however Craig leads the second pack after that; as I've said, there is no Bond actor I DON'T like.
I used to be excited when another Bond movie came out, but now, since the reboot, I couldn't care less. I'm losing a huge part of my childhood thanks to DC and this new direction and they are killing my hero slowly.
And I feel I'm getting Bond back...these things tend to go in cycles...you'll get the Bond you prefer back at some stage...but I'm just just enjoying the way DC portrays Bond and the directon the movies are going in...be happy for me )
Lol, I am happy for you. And who knows, now that the origin story cycle has been completed maybe we will see the balance I am missing return and we can both be happy. I truly hope so.
I must be missing something. I just can't stand him. He is quite seriously #6 in my list.
IMHO, he's one dimensional, ugly as sin, a bore to watch, unconvincing, forced, poorly written, unbalanced, and lacks any of the suave gentility necessary to Bond
Add to that, I feel the whole reboot lacks any sort of direction and has been extremely difficult to follow. QOS was downright unintelligible, IMO.
What am I not seeing? I'm trying to like him. I really am! I watched CR 4 times and only found more problems each time. I've forced myself to watch QoS twice. Still don't understand it, and the camera work made me motion sick both times. Now I paid good money to see Skyfall and came away feeling like Macaulay Caulkin is now playing Bond.
Can some please explain what is so good about Craig to them? I haven't missed a Bond in the theaters since TLD. But this reboot is killing this fan!
The problem is not with Craig but with Babs and Mike. They wanted this direction. The film audience of the 21st Century is not interested in a Bond who can utter his lines. In the three Craig-Bond I can barely understand what he is saying.
He cannot espouse the Manichaean idea behind Fleming's Bond, but Babs and Mike are not interested in it, they interested in the Bourne and the Transporter type Bond movies.
"And if I told you that I'm from the Ministry of Defence?" James Bond - The Property of a Lady
now that the origin story cycle has been completed maybe we will see the balance I am missing return and we can both be happy. I truly hope so.
This will only go one of two ways: either they will swing the pendulum more towards adventure -or- the SF billion dollar take will embolden continuing the darker edge, in which case we'll get Mallory as a Quantum double agent and Bond will again fall into a malaise of questioning his role in the agency, or Moneypenny will be murdered in a topical ex-boyfriend-maniac-from-the-Middle-East thing (what? You didn't know she was of the Islamic faith) so she can be replaced with her white half sister with the same last name, or Felix will turn to the dark side & only Bond can turn him back (before he dies to save Bond, of course), etc....
I'm expecting adventure though! )
I am a bit surprised as I thought that we were past this now and concerns re how DC looks had receded like his hairline. I am curious as to why now do we have a flurry of posts about it. Even I had made my piece with the fact that he at his worst looks like a bag of spanners and at his best can just about make me forget how miscast he is.So what is it that is making people concerned about this again? we have just had Skyfall which if not the truly great Bond movie we were hoping for is at least a considerable step up from QOS and for a lot of people a high grossing and high watermark.
I bring it up because I'm sick of seeing Bad Bond movies touted as the greatest ever. I'm trying desperately to understand what I'm missing because I've never felt this way about Bond movies before. I used to be excited when another Bond movie came out, but now, since the reboot, I couldn't care less. I'm losing a huge part of my childhood thanks to DC and this new direction and they are killing my hero slowly. I really cannot express the pain I feel watching DC turn Bond into the Terminator. And it made worse with every review and record broken, because I know it's going to be used as justification to continue. Honestly, it's like watching Luke go to the Dark Side, or Batman picking up a gun and killing someone because the producers wanted a "New Direction". That's what I see happening and I'm praying you other fans can convince me I'm wrong, that there is something I'm not seeing, that there is hope that Bond will be back.
Look at the cover of the 50 year anniversary collection as an illustration of what I mean: there you see 5 men holding pistols, a precision weapon. DC has a HK mp-50. A spray and pray, submachine gun. The subtlety is gone, everything Bond is gone, and I despair for the future films for the first time in my life.
Wait a minute! You're complaining that Craig's Bond is superhuman? Hell, the other Bonds engaged in all sorts of outrageous fights, falls, and other physical feats without so much as breaking a sweat or knocking a hair out of place (although Dalton did a least look like he had been through a brutal ordeal at the climax of LTK). Craig shows every scar, bruise and bloody wound when he engages in the physical rough stuff, so I'm not sure I understand that comment.
I used to be excited when another Bond movie came out, but now, since the reboot, I couldn't care less. I'm losing a huge part of my childhood thanks to DC and this new direction and they are killing my hero slowly.
On a certain level, I feel your pain. But no need to feel like you're losing your childhood- you still have it in your memories and Bond DVD's. :x
For me personally, the classic (& neo-classic) Bonds ended with TWINE. DAD was the final nail in that particular coffin. As soon as I saw CR I realized the Bond of my younger days was forever gone. The world got meaner and so the Bond films had to follow suite. The movies featured heroes that could match the comic book character Daredevil in terms of physicality so the Bond films had to follow suite. Look at Die Hard; John McClane used to be merely a super-tough human being as well- now he AND Bond can BOTH leap off tall buildings in a single bound without breaking a bone.
Take heart, we will always have our favourites from the past.
And in the future, you'll be able to order up Sean Connery in SF or Dalton in CR with the new "Your Favourite Actor" app. -{
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Wait a minute! You're complaining that Craig's Bond is superhuman? Hell, the other Bonds engaged in all sorts of outrageous fights, falls, and other physical feats without so much as breaking a sweat or knocking a hair out of place (although Dalton did a least look like he had been through a brutal ordeal at the climax of LTK). Craig shows every scar, bruise and bloody wound when he engages in the physical rough stuff, so I'm not sure I understand that comment.
I used to be excited when another Bond movie came out, but now, since the reboot, I couldn't care less. I'm losing a huge part of my childhood thanks to DC and this new direction and they are killing my hero slowly.
On a certain level, I feel your pain. But no need to feel like you're losing your childhood- you still have it in your memories and Bond DVD's. :x
For me personally, the classic (& neo-classic) Bonds ended with TWINE. DAD was the final nail in that particular coffin. As soon as I saw CR I realized the Bond of my younger days was forever gone. The world got meaner and so the Bond films had to follow suite. The movies featured heroes that could match the comic book character Daredevil in terms of physicality so the Bond films had to follow suite. Look at Die Hard; John McClane used to be merely a super-tough human being as well- now he AND Bond can BOTH leap off tall buildings in a single bound without breaking a bone.
Take heart, we will always have our favourites from the past.
And in the future, you'll be able to order up Sean Connery in SF or Dalton in CR with the new "Your Favourite Actor" app. -{
Actually, the Madagascar scene in CR, the first scene since the PTS, was meant to emphasize a few things about the new Bond, the grittiness for example, but intentionally or not, how this Bond is superhuman despite the nicks and bruises. Can you picture any of the other Bonds sprinting after the bomb-maker like DC did? Can you see them scaling that construction site, or infiltrating a consulate that way? Not that I'm complaining because that's one of my most favorite DC sequences.
"...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.....
Actually, I could see either Dalton or Brosnan doing that scene (although afterwards Brosnan would probably still look like he had just left a high class dinner party!)
Wait a minute! You're complaining that Craig's Bond is superhuman? Hell, the other Bonds engaged in all sorts of outrageous fights, falls, and other physical feats without so much as breaking a sweat or knocking a hair out of place (although Dalton did a least look like he had been through a brutal ordeal at the climax of LTK). Craig shows every scar, bruise and bloody wound when he engages in the physical rough stuff, so I'm not sure I understand that comment.
On a certain level, I feel your pain. But no need to feel like you're losing your childhood- you still have it in your memories and Bond DVD's. :x
For me personally, the classic (& neo-classic) Bonds ended with TWINE. DAD was the final nail in that particular coffin. As soon as I saw CR I realized the Bond of my younger days was forever gone. The world got meaner and so the Bond films had to follow suite. The movies featured heroes that could match the comic book character Daredevil in terms of physicality so the Bond films had to follow suite. Look at Die Hard; John McClane used to be merely a super-tough human being as well- now he AND Bond can BOTH leap off tall buildings in a single bound without breaking a bone.
Take heart, we will always have our favourites from the past.
And in the future, you'll be able to order up Sean Connery in SF or Dalton in CR with the new "Your Favourite Actor" app. -{
Actually, the Madagascar scene in CR, the first scene since the PTS, was meant to emphasize a few things about the new Bond, the grittiness for example, but intentionally or not, how this Bond is superhuman despite the nicks and bruises. Can you picture any of the other Bonds sprinting after the bomb-maker like DC did? Can you see them scaling that construction site, or infiltrating a consulate that way? Not that I'm complaining because that's one of my most favorite DC sequences.
Actually, I could see either Dalton or Brosnan doing that scene (although afterwards Brosnan would probably still look like he had just left a high class dinner party!)
superado wrote:
Blackleiter wrote:
Wait a minute! You're complaining that Craig's Bond is superhuman? Hell, the other Bonds engaged in all sorts of outrageous fights, falls, and other physical feats without so much as breaking a sweat or knocking a hair out of place (although Dalton did a least look like he had been through a brutal ordeal at the climax of LTK). Craig shows every scar, bruise and bloody wound when he engages in the physical rough stuff, so I'm not sure I understand that comment.
chrisisall wrote:
On a certain level, I feel your pain. But no need to feel like you're losing your childhood- you still have it in your memories and Bond DVD's.
For me personally, the classic (& neo-classic) Bonds ended with TWINE. DAD was the final nail in that particular coffin. As soon as I saw CR I realized the Bond of my younger days was forever gone. The world got meaner and so the Bond films had to follow suite. The movies featured heroes that could match the comic book character Daredevil in terms of physicality so the Bond films had to follow suite. Look at Die Hard; John McClane used to be merely a super-tough human being as well- now he AND Bond can BOTH leap off tall buildings in a single bound without breaking a bone.
Take heart, we will always have our favourites from the past.
And in the future, you'll be able to order up Sean Connery in SF or Dalton in CR with the new "Your Favourite Actor" app.
Actually, the Madagascar scene in CR, the first scene since the PTS, was meant to emphasize a few things about the new Bond, the grittiness for example, but intentionally or not, how this Bond is superhuman despite the nicks and bruises. Can you picture any of the other Bonds sprinting after the bomb-maker like DC did? Can you see them scaling that construction site, or infiltrating a consulate that way? Not that I'm complaining because that's one of my most favorite DC sequences.
I agree, that scene was one of the highlights of the DC films. CR was definitely his best. But, I could totally see Dalton or Brosnan doing those types of scenes(Goldeneye archives and Russian Air base, ringing a bell?) The difference would be that those two would have done it with panache. Like Brosnan straightening his tie during the Tank chase scene. And could you imagine either of them at that Poker Game? Oh man, they would have looked like they actually belonged there instead of some Mob Tough in a monkey suit.
I wanna thank all you guys for your posts, you have given me reason for hope. Esp. this post -
The problem is not with Craig but with Babs and Mike. They wanted this direction. The film audience of the 21st Century is not interested in a Bond who can utter his lines. In the three Craig-Bond I can barely understand what he is saying.
He cannot espouse the Manichaean idea behind Fleming's Bond, but Babs and Mike are not interested in it, they interested in the Bourne and the Transporter type Bond movies.
Perhaps like some of Brosnan's films, Craig is simply doing the best he can with the crap he's been given in the last two movies. I hope, if Craig returns for more, I will see some good. Some of what I was hoping for after CR. Some of the dualism referred to here. That delicate balance that keeps Bond sane despite the insane stuff he has to do.
One thing, can someone please tell me what PSR means? ?:) I've figured out all the other abbreviations, but I can't get this one. Sorry, I'm new here
Actually, upon further reflection, I think I've figured it out. CR, QoS, and Skyfall are like EP.1,2,&3 of Star Wars. The embarrassing, poorly directed, woodenly acted, but with better technology. The wish we could forget them additions to the franchise. They are trying to tell an origin story, but that after that is done, most classic fans will wish they would go away.
Wait a minute! You're complaining that Craig's Bond is superhuman? Craig shows every scar, bruise and bloody wound when he engages in the physical rough stuff, so I'm not sure I understand that comment.
We all can deal with Bond doing the seemingly impossible, but in so many scenes??
C'mon. It's just that they keep pushing what he can do, just like Moore's films kept pushing the level of comedy until MR- then they had to back off.
Let's keep it to one or two seeming impossible things per movie, eh? )
I wouldn't try to convince anyone about Craig, any more than I'd want anyone to convince me about Moore. However, I suppose the reason I like him is mostly due to the fact his films brought the series back to reality and the type of stories Fleming wrote instead of making clones of the sci fi spectacles like MR/YOLT/DAD, etc. Also, even though I still dislike that he's light haired - which to me is like having a light haired Superman or Sherlock Holmes - and that he could easily dye it for the films - he's an actor playing a role after all - his protrayal brings a gravitas and reality for me that was lacking in many of the other films. His brutishness and bluntness at times may seem un-Bond like to many, but to me it only reinforces the reality of his job as well as how soul sucking it would actually be. It's one of the reasons the character smoked and drank so much in the books as well as looked forward to luxurious meals and travel, for each one could have been the last he would ever experience. Sure Craig is not classically handsome the way a lot of the other actors have been.
Had they made the films in fifties I always pictured Stewart Granger as Bond.
Fleming actually described Bond as looking like Hoagy Carmichael. Now, he wasn't and un-attractive man as men go, but he was certainly not in any circumstances a handsome leading man type that so many think the film Bond should be.
Now we have mostly a Steve McQueen clone almost, yet when I've seen some of McQueen's films, he also carried off that cool, distant, taciturn vibe that Craig gives off. No, I don't want a Steve McQueen looking Bond, but I enjoy a McQueen acting type of Bond. Like McQueen, Craig to me shows he can handle himself in a dangerous situation, but also has that impish side when he relaxes and smiles and is enjoying a moment. It's the feeling I get when I read Fleming's Bond. I may picture someone more resembling Dalton, but he and Craig have both made Bond and his profession seem more real to me than Moore or Brosnan did (though Bros did an acceptable job to me for the type of films they put him in). Many criticize Craig for not emoting much or not saying much, but thats what makes his character more real for me. The small endearing chatty patter that Moore and Brosnan did so well was fine for their style of films and made them entertaining, but it made them seem a little less real for me. Craig, like McQueen, communicates to me what their feeling without the patter. It's how they carry themselves through a scene and how they show their feelings rather than speak them. Some may interpret this as just appearing to be bored or just vacant, but I don't feel it that way. When I watch Craig as Bond, he's trying to be a real person as opposed to a superhero. As far as his more physicality when it comes to action scenes, I understand how some see those as more suited to something more like Bruce Willis or Stratham, etc. does, but one has to keep in mind the type of action scenes they do Bond has been doing for decades. They've tried to copy the Bond films, rather than vice versa. Even Tom Cruise has done it with the last Mission Impossible, though I have to admit I wish that had been a Bond movie! I don't recall Bond in the novels chasing anyone on foot through any extented action scenes (or doing any kind of extended running as they do in the films), but the films diverged from Fleming from the very beginning. I feel sorry that you won't be enjoying the franchise until they replace Craig and go into another direction with the films, but at least they kept it alive up till now and will have at least the opportunity to do that in the future.
I wouldn't try to convince anyone about Craig, any more than I'd want anyone to convince me about Moore. However, I suppose the reason I like him is mostly due to the fact his films brought the series back to reality and the type of stories Fleming wrote instead of making clones of the sci fi spectacles like MR/YOLT/DAD, etc. Also, even though I still dislike that he's light haired - which to me is like having a light haired Superman or Sherlock Holmes - and that he could easily dye it for the films - he's an actor playing a role after all - his protrayal brings a gravitas and reality for me that was lacking in many of the other films. His brutishness and bluntness at times may seem un-Bond like to many, but to me it only reinforces the reality of his job as well as how soul sucking it would actually be. It's one of the reasons the character smoked and drank so much in the books as well as looked forward to luxurious meals and travel, for each one could have been the last he would ever experience. Sure Craig is not classically handsome the way a lot of the other actors have been.
Had they made the films in fifties I always pictured Stewart Granger as Bond.
Fleming actually described Bond as looking like Hoagy Carmichael. Now, he wasn't and un-attractive man as men go, but he was certainly not in any circumstances a handsome leading man type that so many think the film Bond should be.
Now we have mostly a Steve McQueen clone almost, yet when I've seen some of McQueen's films, he also carried off that cool, distant, taciturn vibe that Craig gives off. No, I don't want a Steve McQueen looking Bond, but I enjoy a McQueen acting type of Bond. Like McQueen, Craig to me shows he can handle himself in a dangerous situation, but also has that impish side when he relaxes and smiles and is enjoying a moment. It's the feeling I get when I read Fleming's Bond. I may picture someone more resembling Dalton, but he and Craig have both made Bond and his profession seem more real to me than Moore or Brosnan did (though Bros did an acceptable job to me for the type of films they put him in). Many criticize Craig for not emoting much or not saying much, but thats what makes his character more real for me. The small endearing chatty patter that Moore and Brosnan did so well was fine for their style of films and made them entertaining, but it made them seem a little less real for me. Craig, like McQueen, communicates to me what their feeling without the patter. It's how they carry themselves through a scene and how they show their feelings rather than speak them. Some may interpret this as just appearing to be bored or just vacant, but I don't feel it that way. When I watch Craig as Bond, he's trying to be a real person as opposed to a superhero. As far as his more physicality when it comes to action scenes, I understand how some see those as more suited to something more like Bruce Willis or Stratham, etc. does, but one has to keep in mind the type of action scenes they do Bond has been doing for decades. They've tried to copy the Bond films, rather than vice versa. Even Tom Cruise has done it with the last Mission Impossible, though I have to admit I wish that had been a Bond movie! I don't recall Bond in the novels chasing anyone on foot through any extented action scenes (or doing any kind of extended running as they do in the films), but the films diverged from Fleming from the very beginning. I feel sorry that you won't be enjoying the franchise until they replace Craig and go into another direction with the films, but at least they kept it alive up till now and will have at least the opportunity to do that in the future.
One of the most reasonable and well thought out explanations I've heard. Thank you.
Beg your pardon, forgot to knock...
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Fleming actually described Bond as looking like Hoagy Carmichael. Now, he wasn't and un-attractive man as men go, but he was certainly not in any circumstances a handsome leading man type that so many think the film Bond should be.
Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine when there's an attempt to discredit the standard or to place doubt on the source material rather than accepting the facts. It's important to note that Bond not only looked like Hoagy Carmichael, but a young Hoagy Carmichael, which in the cinematic world of Bond is a world of difference! )
Bond is described as "very handsome" not just by Vesper Lynd; Tatiana Romanova calls him "terribly handsome" and tells Bond he looks like a film actor (to which of course he objects); the scar does add a piratical accent to his appearance, which is an important enhancement to his total look and characterization, but to transcend borders and be considered handsome to two dramatically different cultures must mean something. However, I honestly do not know what concept "handsome" holds today in the mind of the average person, but in older generations "handsome" was a distinct quality and as I've illustrated in AJB before, when you wanted to pick out a person in the group with "oh, he's the handsome guy," people would know who you were talking about.
In his book, James Bond: The Man and His World : the Official Companion to Ian Fleming's Creation, Henry Chancellor puts into context Tatiana's "film star" reference by mentioning that from the author's perspective in the postwar UK, print advertisement was plastered all over the place, selling everything from cigarettes to shaving cream and whether it was a painting or photographic image that was used, almost always it was a handsome face with a leading man qualities that people saw.
As Christopher Lee also mentioned regarding his conversations about Bond's character with his cousing by marriage, Ian Fleming, out of all the Bond actors he thinks that Brosnan was closest to how the author envisioned Bond and together with what was written by Fleming in terms of Bond's looks and physique, it all makes sense.
"...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.....
As Christopher Lee also mentioned regarding his conversations about Bond's character with his cousin by marriage, Ian Fleming, out of all the Bond actors he thinks that Brosnan was closest to how the author envisioned Bond and together with what was written by Fleming in terms of Bond's looks and physique, it all makes sense.
I wouldn't try to convince anyone about Craig, any more than I'd want anyone to convince me about Moore.
Had they made the films in fifties I always pictured Stewart Granger as Bond.
But Stewart Granger was a bit like Moore. In fact, my mum fancied him back in the day, and always liked Moore as Bond, so that may be the reason why... Guess Granger had a darker vibe though. (Both appeared in Wild Geese, of course, though didn't share a scene).
Comments
No I think I would rather there be no Bond movies at all than have another Craig debacle.
im telling you Scott Adkins
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTY5MTQ4MjMwNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDMwNTUyOA@@._V1._SX214_CR0,0,214,314_.jpg
Some of us felt that way at the time.
I am a bit surprised as I thought that we were past this now and concerns re how DC looks had receded like his hairline. I am curious as to why now do we have a flurry of posts about it. Even I had made my piece with the fact that he at his worst looks like a bag of spanners and at his best can just about make me forget how miscast he is.So what is it that is making people concerned about this again? we have just had Skyfall which if not the truly great Bond movie we were hoping for is at least a considerable step up from QOS and for a lot of people a high grossing and high watermark.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
I bring it up because I'm sick of seeing Bad Bond movies touted as the greatest ever. I'm trying desperately to understand what I'm missing because I've never felt this way about Bond movies before. I used to be excited when another Bond movie came out, but now, since the reboot, I couldn't care less. I'm losing a huge part of my childhood thanks to DC and this new direction and they are killing my hero slowly. I really cannot express the pain I feel watching DC turn Bond into the Terminator. And it made worse with every review and record broken, because I know it's going to be used as justification to continue. Honestly, it's like watching Luke go to the Dark Side, or Batman picking up a gun and killing someone because the producers wanted a "New Direction". That's what I see happening and I'm praying you other fans can convince me I'm wrong, that there is something I'm not seeing, that there is hope that Bond will be back.
Look at the cover of the 50 year anniversary collection as an illustration of what I mean: there you see 5 men holding pistols, a precision weapon. DC has a HK mp-50. A spray and pray, submachine gun. The subtlety is gone, everything Bond is gone, and I despair for the future films for the first time in my life.
There is a line from a Jason Stratham film called Parker coming out.
J-Lo complains to him, while they're driving in the car: 'How can you sleep at night?'
He drawls: 'I don't drink coffee after seven...'
Fantastic! But we don't get too many of those things any more, it's like Craig is a more down to earth guy - but my gripe is the films aren't down to earth, they fall back on the Bond iconography more than ever.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
reminds me of this height chart with Mel Gibson
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
I agree with Blackleiter that already happened. However, don't confuse JW Pepper with Roger Moore..just because his era contained certain comedic elements doesn't mean that Rog himself played Bond for laughs.
I predict a fairly large majority of fans would cheer if a Roger Moore-like Bond re-appeared and brought back the suave sophisticated secret agent that we all know and love. Roger wanted the audience to have fun, whereas Craig is more of an angry, depressed 007.
In fact Craig reminds me of a friend who recently got out of the Marines. Short hair, muscular build, doesn't talk much, not smooth with the ladies, bouts of depression and anger, and could probably beat your ass in a fight.
That being said, I do hope that Craig does at least 3 more Bond films because I'm interested to see where he will take the character next.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
For me personally, the classic (& neo-classic) Bonds ended with TWINE. DAD was the final nail in that particular coffin. As soon as I saw CR I realized the Bond of my younger days was forever gone. The world got meaner and so the Bond films had to follow suite. The movies featured heroes that could match the comic book character Daredevil in terms of physicality so the Bond films had to follow suite. Look at Die Hard; John McClane used to be merely a super-tough human being as well- now he AND Bond can BOTH leap off tall buildings in a single bound without breaking a bone.
Take heart, we will always have our favourites from the past.
And in the future, you'll be able to order up Sean Connery in SF or Dalton in CR with the new "Your Favourite Actor" app. -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
And I feel I'm getting Bond back...these things tend to go in cycles...you'll get the Bond you prefer back at some stage...but I'm just just enjoying the way DC portrays Bond and the directon the movies are going in...be happy for me
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Lol, I am happy for you. And who knows, now that the origin story cycle has been completed maybe we will see the balance I am missing return and we can both be happy. I truly hope so.
The problem is not with Craig but with Babs and Mike. They wanted this direction. The film audience of the 21st Century is not interested in a Bond who can utter his lines. In the three Craig-Bond I can barely understand what he is saying.
He cannot espouse the Manichaean idea behind Fleming's Bond, but Babs and Mike are not interested in it, they interested in the Bourne and the Transporter type Bond movies.
I'm expecting adventure though!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Actually, the Madagascar scene in CR, the first scene since the PTS, was meant to emphasize a few things about the new Bond, the grittiness for example, but intentionally or not, how this Bond is superhuman despite the nicks and bruises. Can you picture any of the other Bonds sprinting after the bomb-maker like DC did? Can you see them scaling that construction site, or infiltrating a consulate that way? Not that I'm complaining because that's one of my most favorite DC sequences.
I agree, that scene was one of the highlights of the DC films. CR was definitely his best. But, I could totally see Dalton or Brosnan doing those types of scenes(Goldeneye archives and Russian Air base, ringing a bell?) The difference would be that those two would have done it with panache. Like Brosnan straightening his tie during the Tank chase scene. And could you imagine either of them at that Poker Game? Oh man, they would have looked like they actually belonged there instead of some Mob Tough in a monkey suit.
I wanna thank all you guys for your posts, you have given me reason for hope.
Perhaps like some of Brosnan's films, Craig is simply doing the best he can with the crap he's been given in the last two movies. I hope, if Craig returns for more, I will see some good. Some of what I was hoping for after CR. Some of the dualism referred to here. That delicate balance that keeps Bond sane despite the insane stuff he has to do.
One thing, can someone please tell me what PSR means? ?:) I've figured out all the other abbreviations, but I can't get this one. Sorry, I'm new here
So if DC is Anakin, who is Jar Jar?
C'mon. It's just that they keep pushing what he can do, just like Moore's films kept pushing the level of comedy until MR- then they had to back off.
Let's keep it to one or two seeming impossible things per movie, eh?
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Had they made the films in fifties I always pictured Stewart Granger as Bond.
Fleming actually described Bond as looking like Hoagy Carmichael. Now, he wasn't and un-attractive man as men go, but he was certainly not in any circumstances a handsome leading man type that so many think the film Bond should be.
Now we have mostly a Steve McQueen clone almost, yet when I've seen some of McQueen's films, he also carried off that cool, distant, taciturn vibe that Craig gives off. No, I don't want a Steve McQueen looking Bond, but I enjoy a McQueen acting type of Bond. Like McQueen, Craig to me shows he can handle himself in a dangerous situation, but also has that impish side when he relaxes and smiles and is enjoying a moment. It's the feeling I get when I read Fleming's Bond. I may picture someone more resembling Dalton, but he and Craig have both made Bond and his profession seem more real to me than Moore or Brosnan did (though Bros did an acceptable job to me for the type of films they put him in). Many criticize Craig for not emoting much or not saying much, but thats what makes his character more real for me. The small endearing chatty patter that Moore and Brosnan did so well was fine for their style of films and made them entertaining, but it made them seem a little less real for me. Craig, like McQueen, communicates to me what their feeling without the patter. It's how they carry themselves through a scene and how they show their feelings rather than speak them. Some may interpret this as just appearing to be bored or just vacant, but I don't feel it that way. When I watch Craig as Bond, he's trying to be a real person as opposed to a superhero. As far as his more physicality when it comes to action scenes, I understand how some see those as more suited to something more like Bruce Willis or Stratham, etc. does, but one has to keep in mind the type of action scenes they do Bond has been doing for decades. They've tried to copy the Bond films, rather than vice versa. Even Tom Cruise has done it with the last Mission Impossible, though I have to admit I wish that had been a Bond movie! I don't recall Bond in the novels chasing anyone on foot through any extented action scenes (or doing any kind of extended running as they do in the films), but the films diverged from Fleming from the very beginning. I feel sorry that you won't be enjoying the franchise until they replace Craig and go into another direction with the films, but at least they kept it alive up till now and will have at least the opportunity to do that in the future.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
One of the most reasonable and well thought out explanations I've heard. Thank you.
Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine when there's an attempt to discredit the standard or to place doubt on the source material rather than accepting the facts. It's important to note that Bond not only looked like Hoagy Carmichael, but a young Hoagy Carmichael, which in the cinematic world of Bond is a world of difference!
Bond is described as "very handsome" not just by Vesper Lynd; Tatiana Romanova calls him "terribly handsome" and tells Bond he looks like a film actor (to which of course he objects); the scar does add a piratical accent to his appearance, which is an important enhancement to his total look and characterization, but to transcend borders and be considered handsome to two dramatically different cultures must mean something. However, I honestly do not know what concept "handsome" holds today in the mind of the average person, but in older generations "handsome" was a distinct quality and as I've illustrated in AJB before, when you wanted to pick out a person in the group with "oh, he's the handsome guy," people would know who you were talking about.
In his book, James Bond: The Man and His World : the Official Companion to Ian Fleming's Creation, Henry Chancellor puts into context Tatiana's "film star" reference by mentioning that from the author's perspective in the postwar UK, print advertisement was plastered all over the place, selling everything from cigarettes to shaving cream and whether it was a painting or photographic image that was used, almost always it was a handsome face with a leading man qualities that people saw.
As Christopher Lee also mentioned regarding his conversations about Bond's character with his cousing by marriage, Ian Fleming, out of all the Bond actors he thinks that Brosnan was closest to how the author envisioned Bond and together with what was written by Fleming in terms of Bond's looks and physique, it all makes sense.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
But Stewart Granger was a bit like Moore. In fact, my mum fancied him back in the day, and always liked Moore as Bond, so that may be the reason why... Guess Granger had a darker vibe though. (Both appeared in Wild Geese, of course, though didn't share a scene).
Roger Moore 1927-2017