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.
I mean, same applied when Keaton took over as Batman. He looked nothing like the comic strip, but someone said hey, even the bank tillers had square jaws in those! It was just an identikit image.
But perhaps that was almost more for the guys than the gals. Who is to say women find that so attractive, in real terms? They can't be second guessed. Craig is more likely to put men's noses out of joint than women's, because for men, they don't get the implied benefits that women might have, in terms of fantasing about being in bed with him.
Yes, I agree that Craig isn't good looking enough in my book to be Fleming's Bond. But then others lacked a certain something that Craig has in spades, so there you go. The tide really is shifting, on the basis that women are now a stronger cultural force and what they say carries weight. Mind you, it was Cubby's wife who talked up Connery's hiring for Dr No, so maybe it was ever thus.
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).
Roger Moore was a great admirer of Stewart Granger when he was an aspiring actor. His first experience was as an extra in the film Caesar and Cleopatra (1945), in which Granger had a starring role. Apparently, when they met on the set of The Wild Geese they greeted each other with a big bear hug. Granger had heard of Moore's admiration of him saying, "I'm flattered, the guy must be an idiot - but he's still my buddy."
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
I have noted before, that to some extent it there is generational element to this. I have noticed that younger women (20's- 30's ) seem to find DC very attractive, not ' handsome ' perhaps but he has that sexual energy that was noted in Connerry during casting. To an old fart like me he looks like a bag of spanners, but that's not the point.
for me any dissonance is centred upon his lack of class and gravitas.However as others have said he has other qualities in spades.
As well as handsome he
(Bond) is also described as 'tough looking' which nobody could accuse Brosnan off.
I will always believe that Fleming was describing his brother Peter when he
was trying to come up with Bond's appearance. He looked up to him a lot and he was also an agent during the war. He probably added the scar because he may have seen it on one of the many agents or commandos he had known. He described Bond looking like Carmichael because there was a minor resemblance with Peter, and Carmichael's appearance was well known in the media then. Yes, actors like Brosnan or Moore would be considered handsome from a photogenic view and in general by most audiences, but the idea of them giving off a vibe of being dangerous can be very subjective. It's another reason I think Fleming gave Bond the scar.
"He was good-looking in a dark, rather cruel way, and a scar showed
whitely down his left cheek." - from TSWLM. Now I could describe Brosnan
or Moore or as good looking, but I would not say in a dark, cruel way. I would not have a problem describing Connery or Dalton or even Craig as such (except Craig's light hair scews the result some what). All the actors could always try and act in a dark, cruel manner - but appearing that way just standing in a scene is something else. Even Lazenby could probably pass for seeming a bit threatening, but not as much too me as the above three. My problem with Moore was he just never did come across that way unless he showed it in his behaviour. I think he did a good job in the role as far as the type of films he was given, I just thought they made the character too lightweight with the obsessive humor. However, the audience seemed to have preferred that at the time given the box office success of his films. Yes, when it comes to Fleming's Bond, Craig is definitely the actor who is the least handsome and the least to resemble the Bond in the novels, but I could still see him as a youth at Eton. However, I keep in mind that Fleming gave Bond that background, but he was kicked out for his womanizing and set to Fettes. When I think of the actors who have played Bond, I can imagine that happening to all of them save for Moore and Connery. I can't imagine Moore misbehaving, and Connery just never looked to me like the type you would see walking around in a top hat (though getting kicked out of a regular school I could imagine!).
Connery just never looked to me like the type you would see walking around in a top hat (though getting kicked out of a regular school I could imagine!).
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Now I could describe Brosnan or Moore or as good looking, but I would not say in a dark, cruel way.
I disagree about Brosnan and indeed found him dangerous looking in some of his earlier films like Noble House (a mini-series) in which he was a Taipan, The Deceivers and most especially as the Russian assassin in The Fourth Protocol, where he is much more boyish looking than he ever did as Bond, but paradoxically also much more dangerous in demeanor. Had EON decided with doing the "Bond as thug" direction much earlier, I think Brosnan could have pulled it off.
"...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.....
Now I could describe Brosnan or Moore or as good looking, but I would not say in a dark, cruel way.
I disagree about Brosnan and indeed found him dangerous looking in some of his earlier films like Noble House (a mini-series) in which he was a Taipan, The Deceivers and most especially as the Russian assassin in The Fourth Protocol, where he is much more boyish looking than he ever did as Bond, but paradoxically also much more dangerous in demeanor. Had EON decided with doing the "Bond as thug" direction much earlier, I think Brosnan could have pulled it off.
Even a older Brosnan could play a man who looks dangerous. When watching Taylor of Panama he puts on the charm, but at times, seem outright evil, heck, my GF at the time was sure Bronson character was going to rape Jamie Lee Curtis character TWICE in that movie when we watched it (in the water bit and when he grabs her from behind), and she figured he was going to put a bullet in Rushes head to cover his tracks at the end.
Even a older Brosnan could play a man who looks dangerous. When watching Taylor of Panama he puts on the charm, but at times, seem outright evil, heck, my GF at the time was sure Bronson character was going to rape Jamie Lee Curtis character TWICE in that movie when we watched it (in the water bit and when he grabs her from behind), and she figured he was going to put a bullet in Rushes head to cover his tracks at the end.
I don't have a doubt in my head about Brosnan pulling off every scene in the last three movies. Perhaps that's part of my problem with Craig, too. I really feel like PB got the shaft from EON. "Here you go Pierce, here's a great script to start you off with, and here's three mediocre scripts in which you will be getting funnier and and less serious with each one." and then "Oh Pierce, no need to prep for a 5th, audiences are sick of your portrayal and want a more serious, darker Bond." Meanwhile Craig is touted as the greatest Bond ever while playing every scene like Hayden Christiansen in Star Wars.
Brosnan was held back by his scripts, and Craig is being made by them.
Brosnan was held back by his scripts, and Craig is being made by them.
What's the word I'm looking for...oh yes: bullsh*t!
Craig is acknowledged by fellow actors as one of the best of his generation. Besides, QoS is not exactly a fan favourite. If you don't like Craig, fine! Just don't try to slag him off with bad arguments.
Craig is a good actor, who made two great films (CR, Layer Cake) and some good ones (Skyfall, Munich) and some bad ones (QoS, Cowboys and Aliens). When given good scrips, Both actors being discussed did a great job in the bond role. Though Craig next movie will be the rubber on where he stands, as for me at least, skyfall is best remembered by the cast AROUND bond then bond himself.
Brosnan was held back by his scripts, and Craig is being made by them.
What's the word I'm looking for...oh yes: bullsh*t!
Craig is acknowledged by fellow actors as one of the best of his generation. Besides, QoS is not exactly a fan favourite. If you don't like Craig, fine! Just don't try to slag him off with bad arguments.
You don't think that the huge differences in EON's creative mandates from before and after the reboot affected how the resident actor delivered their roles and the quality of their acting? It seems like the premise behind your response is based on a bad argument and pretty naive.
"...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.....
Connery just never looked to me like the type you would see walking around in a top hat (though getting kicked out of a regular school I could imagine!).
Someone of Connery's ilk would not have even been admitted if that was their attitude. The young boys who went to that school during Fleming's time came from the type of families that dressed formally on a regular basis. They came from wealthy families and the aristocracy. I conversed with an elderly Etonian years ago and queried him about the uniform. He and his classmates were proud to wear it at the time because what it represented to them, and of course it always made them look damn good in photos!
Not letting him know I was actually thinking about Bond at Eton when I talked to him, I asked him if knew of any boys who had gotten into enough trouble to be expelled. He said that a few would came close, but usually they were punished in other ways. He said there was a story about how Harold McMillan had been expelled for having gay sex, but the real story had to do with McMillan's mother getting some dirt that he was going to be sexually abused so she decided to get him out.
So as one can see, the boys going to Eton at that time displayed a certain attitude from their backgrounds and class. Not wanting to wear their school uniform would not have even been considered.
Now I could describe Brosnan or Moore or as good looking, but I would not say in a dark, cruel way.
I disagree about Brosnan and indeed found him dangerous looking in some of his earlier films like Noble House (a mini-series) in which he was a Taipan, The Deceivers and most especially as the Russian assassin in The Fourth Protocol, where he is much more boyish looking than he ever did as Bond, but paradoxically also much more dangerous in demeanor. Had EON decided with doing the "Bond as thug" direction much earlier, I think Brosnan could have pulled it off.
Even a older Brosnan could play a man who looks dangerous. When watching Taylor of Panama he puts on the charm, but at times, seem outright evil, heck, my GF at the time was sure Bronson character was going to rape Jamie Lee Curtis character TWICE in that movie when we watched it (in the water bit and when he grabs her from behind), and she figured he was going to put a bullet in Rushes head to cover his tracks at the end.
My point wasn't that Brosnan could not be convincing at acting as a cruel man. It was that from purely a photogenic view he doesn't not come across to me personally as a dangerous, cruel character anymore than Moore does. He seems a bit more threatening looking than Moore, but not by a lot, because their model good looks betray that threat. That's why I rank Brosnan and Moore and even Lazenby close together for that reason. Moore being the least cruel looking of any of the actors, followed by Brosnan then Lazenby.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Brosnan was held back by his scripts, and Craig is being made by them.
As I've mentioned in this thread and others, there were huge changes in the creative mandate in DC's films, particularly CR. I'm curious how it would have turned out without Haggis helping set the tone for the reboot and more so, how DC would have fared without a reboot, being forced to do a "best of Bond" delivery. Depending on which creative muse is tickling Barbara Brocolli at any time, we could one day easily see DC para-surfing on a tsunami.
the statement about Craig being made by his scripts is nonsense.
Yes, seeing as he was virtually one of the writers of QOS.
I don't remember much about the behind-the-scene buzz with QoS or if there are official QoS writing credits for him, but if he was heavily involved in the script then it was a good thing and it shows. I for one liked how un-Bond that movie was and would have appreciated DC for this creative change. However, it's interesting how QoS is so disregarded by many DC fans and what it means if he was heavily involved creatively, is that for these fans he shouldn't have been )
"...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 my comment wasn't meant to be taken seriously. I know virtually nothing about Eton, and I'm glad to take your word for it that "omeone of Connery's ilk" wouldn't have made it into Eton in the first place. James Bond as portrayed by Connery, however, conceiveably could have been an Eton miscreant who was eventually given the boot, right?
Connery just never looked to me like the type you would see walking around in a top hat (though getting kicked out of a regular school I could imagine!).
Someone of Connery's ilk would not have even been admitted if that was their attitude. The young boys who went to that school during Fleming's time came from the type of families that dressed formally on a regular basis. They came from wealthy families and the aristocracy. I conversed with an elderly Etonian years ago and queried him about the uniform. He and his classmates were proud to wear it at the time because what it represented to them, and of course it always made them look damn good in photos!
Not letting him know I was actually thinking about Bond at Eton when I talked to him, I asked him if knew of any boys who had gotten into enough trouble to be expelled. He said that a few would came close, but usually they were punished in other ways. He said there was a story about how Harold McMillan had been expelled for having gay sex, but the real story had to do with McMillan's mother getting some dirt that he was going to be sexually abused so she decided to get him out.
So as one can see, the boys going to Eton at that time displayed a certain attitude from their backgrounds and class. Not wanting to wear their school uniform would not have even been considered.
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Actually my comment wasn't meant to be taken seriously. I know virtually nothing about Eton, and I'm glad to take your word for it that "omeone of Connery's ilk" wouldn't have made it into Eton in the first place. James Bond as portrayed by Connery, however, conceiveably could have been an Eton miscreant who was eventually given the boot, right?
But don't you see - that's one of the reasons Connery's Bond would have been kicked out of Eton. Because he wouldn't walk around in a top hat!
Someone of Connery's ilk would not have even been admitted if that was their attitude. The young boys who went to that school during Fleming's time came from the type of families that dressed formally on a regular basis. They came from wealthy families and the aristocracy. I conversed with an elderly Etonian years ago and queried him about the uniform. He and his classmates were proud to wear it at the time because what it represented to them, and of course it always made them look damn good in photos!
Not letting him know I was actually thinking about Bond at Eton when I talked to him, I asked him if knew of any boys who had gotten into enough trouble to be expelled. He said that a few would came close, but usually they were punished in other ways. He said there was a story about how Harold McMillan had been expelled for having gay sex, but the real story had to do with McMillan's mother getting some dirt that he was going to be sexually abused so she decided to get him out.
So as one can see, the boys going to Eton at that time displayed a certain attitude from their backgrounds and class. Not wanting to wear their school uniform would not have even been considered.
We can assume with much certainty that the "Etonian" traits of Bond is directly from Fleming's own experiences. As such, Fleming was a rebel and cad, but firmly still part of the establishment and because of those social disctinctions this is why I think he first objected to the casting of Connery because IMO, Connery lacked the public school qualities that Fleming identified with; furthermore, it would have been inconceivable for Fleming to "see" Connery in or out of character as a fellow Etonian, colleague in Whitehall, as part of the social elite, or even the some of the poseur jet set of his circle. Nonetheless, I think Fleming eventually found that Connery suited the racy playboy, sexual/social predator aspect of Bond, despite the fundamental and core differences in character. Since Fleming considered much of Bond to be un-British, I think he similarly saw Connery that way and perhaps identified him with the popular image of the liberated and virile American male.
"...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 my comment wasn't meant to be taken seriously. I know virtually nothing about Eton, and I'm glad to take your word for it that "omeone of Connery's ilk" wouldn't have made it into Eton in the first place. James Bond as portrayed by Connery, however, conceiveably could have been an Eton miscreant who was eventually given the boot, right?
Someone of Connery's ilk would not have even been admitted if that was their attitude. The young boys who went to that school during Fleming's time came from the type of families that dressed formally on a regular basis. They came from wealthy families and the aristocracy. I conversed with an elderly Etonian years ago and queried him about the uniform. He and his classmates were proud to wear it at the time because what it represented to them, and of course it always made them look damn good in photos!
Not letting him know I was actually thinking about Bond at Eton when I talked to him, I asked him if knew of any boys who had gotten into enough trouble to be expelled. He said that a few would came close, but usually they were punished in other ways. He said there was a story about how Harold McMillan had been expelled for having gay sex, but the real story had to do with McMillan's mother getting some dirt that he was going to be sexually abused so she decided to get him out.
So as one can see, the boys going to Eton at that time displayed a certain attitude from their backgrounds and class. Not wanting to wear their school uniform would not have even been considered.
We can assume with much certainty that the "Etonian" traits of Bond is directly from Fleming's own experiences. As such, Fleming was a rebel and cad, but firmly still part of the establishment and because of those social disctinctions this is why I think he first objected to the casting of Connery because IMO, Connery lacked the public school qualities that Fleming identified with; furthermore, it would have been inconceivable for Fleming to "see" Connery in or out of character as a fellow Etonian, colleague in Whitehall, as part of the social elite, or even the some of the poseur jet set of his circle. Nonetheless, I think Fleming eventually found that Connery suited the racy playboy, sexual/social predator aspect of Bond, despite the fundamental and core differences in character. Since Fleming considered much of Bond to be un-British, I think he similarly saw Connery that way and perhaps identified him with the popular image of the liberated and virile American male.
Brosnan was held back by his scripts, and Craig is being made by them.
What's the word I'm looking for...oh yes: bullsh*t!
Craig is acknowledged by fellow actors as one of the best of his generation. Besides, QoS is not exactly a fan favourite. If you don't like Craig, fine! Just don't try to slag him off with bad arguments.
You don't think that the huge differences in EON's creative mandates from before and after the reboot affected how the resident actor delivered their roles and the quality of their acting? It seems like the premise behind your response is based on a bad argument and pretty naive.
Yes - we know... You don't like Craig, you don't like Skyfall. Other people's arguments are stupid, naive etc.
Dude, get over it...
Brozzer can do good stuff - but has been hamstrung by his time on TV doing stuff like Remington Steele, his acting can come across as too generic, too TV movie of the week at times. It's like comparing the writing in a magazine article with that in a quality novel - it may be very good but it is of its type, it cuts corners and simplifies compared to the depth of a novel.
But sometimes that is okay anyway. He had a narcissistic qualithy that yes, could hold him back, but also worked on some scenes, as there is a narcissistic quality to film Bond, and I would say it's key to the flare of the James Bond Theme. As with a pop star like David Bowie or the Beatles, sometimes it really is all about looking good if you want to be iconic.
Craig can be a good actor but he's not flawless and struggles with the one-liners at times. Actually, he can't do them at all because he can't do that thing of relating to the audience in that nudge nudge way. His acting has more depth, but less range. The bit when he enters the room in CR and freezes on seeing the broken glass, thinking Vesper has topped herself, is one bit that should be great but he just can't pull it off imo. And he mumbles in the first film. And he can't hack corny lines, because he is an actor grounded in reality, so he can't pull it off so well.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
What's the word I'm looking for...oh yes: bullsh*t!
Craig is acknowledged by fellow actors as one of the best of his generation. Besides, QoS is not exactly a fan favourite. If you don't like Craig, fine! Just don't try to slag him off with bad arguments.
You don't think that the huge differences in EON's creative mandates from before and after the reboot affected how the resident actor delivered their roles and the quality of their acting? It seems like the premise behind your response is based on a bad argument and pretty naive.
Yes - we know... You don't like Craig, you don't like Skyfall. Other people's arguments are stupid, naive etc.
Dude, get over it...
No, there are very good arguments from a spectrum of opinions on this board. It's the occasional one like yours that make you look stupid. Why? You lambast someone else's argument as being weak without offering even a reasonable response. Stupid is as stupid does and you "does." 8-) Is your thinking broad enough to accept that others have different opinions from yours with possibly valid reasons? It's you who needs to get over that fact.
"...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.....
No, there are very good arguments from a spectrum of opinions on this board. It's the occasional one like yours that make you look stupid. Why? You lambast someone else's argument as being weak without offering even a reasonable response. Stupid is as stupid does and you "does." 8-) Is your thinking broad enough to accept that others have different opinions from yours with possibly valid reasons? It's you who needs to get over that fact.
If one doesn't like Craig, perfectly fine with me! Just don't blame the script, don't call him a bad actor, don't come up with false reasons. Sometimes someone simply doesn't do it for you - simple as that...
You seem to be the one trying desperately to prove Craig 'bad' , turning other people's arguments against them.
Arguing with you is a waste of time - so I won't.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
No, there are very good arguments from a spectrum of opinions on this board. It's the occasional one like yours that make you look stupid. Why? You lambast someone else's argument as being weak without offering even a reasonable response. Stupid is as stupid does and you "does." 8-) Is your thinking broad enough to accept that others have different opinions from yours with possibly valid reasons? It's you who needs to get over that fact.
If one doesn't like Craig, perfectly fine with me! Just don't blame the script, don't call him a bad actor, don't come up with false reasons. Sometimes someone simply doesn't do it for you - simple as that...
You seem to be the one trying desperately to prove Craig 'bad' , turning other people's arguments against them.
Arguing with you is a waste of time - so I won't.
Since you'd be in trouble arguing yourself out of a paper bag, go straight to insults, is that it? Who said I didn't like Craig? I haven't bought the t-shirt, but will the Blu-rays do? Why don't you read my posts and see exactly what my qualms are about before making conclusions you aren't certain about. I for one try not to make declarations about anything Bond without being able to explain and back it up with reasonable discussion; can you do that? Craig is a great Bond, a great actor whose non-
Bond movies I've paid to seee, but for all the fluff and accolades some people give him in the role, "he ain't all of that." Get a grip.
"...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.....
Brosnan was held back by his scripts, and Craig is being made by them.
What's the word I'm looking for...oh yes: bullsh*t!
Craig is acknowledged by fellow actors as one of the best of his generation. Besides, QoS is not exactly a fan favourite. If you don't like Craig, fine! Just don't try to slag him off with bad arguments.
1: There is a certain level of professional courtesy in those statements that must be accounted for. For the most part, actors don't bad mouth fellow actors because they might have to work along side them sometime and that's a bad foot to start off on.
2. Read the posts man, Brosnan's biggest criticism is the silliness which made its way back into the series under his tenure. That was written in. The biggest plus(to some) in Craig's portrayal is the dark edginess and brooding nature. Also written in.
Has it occurred to you that part of the reason Craig was chosen was because of the darker, edgier tone the producers and writers were going for? They realized that it would take a different caliber of actor to play the role the way they envisioned and they felt Craig fit the bill. Just because something is written in the script doesn't mean every actor will be able to successfully translate it to the screen. That's why it's a bit of a thin argument to say that the scripts "made" Craig. Look, it's obvious you don't think much of Craig as Bond, and that's fine. But it's equally obvious that nothing anyone says will change your mind, so I'm not sure where you're going with this "convince me of Craig""thread. No offense, but what's the point?
Brosnan was held back by his scripts, and Craig is being made by them.
What's the word I'm looking for...oh yes: bullsh*t!
Craig is acknowledged by fellow actors as one of the best of his generation. Besides, QoS is not exactly a fan favourite. If you don't like Craig, fine! Just don't try to slag him off with bad arguments.
1: There is a certain level of professional courtesy in those statements that must be accounted for. For the most part, actors don't bad mouth fellow actors because they might have to work along side them sometime and that's a bad foot to start off on.
2. Read the posts man, Brosnan's biggest criticism is the silliness which made its way back into the series under his tenure. That was written in. The biggest plus(to some) in Craig's portrayal is the dark edginess and brooding nature. Also written in.
Comments
Exactly.
-{
I mean, same applied when Keaton took over as Batman. He looked nothing like the comic strip, but someone said hey, even the bank tillers had square jaws in those! It was just an identikit image.
But perhaps that was almost more for the guys than the gals. Who is to say women find that so attractive, in real terms? They can't be second guessed. Craig is more likely to put men's noses out of joint than women's, because for men, they don't get the implied benefits that women might have, in terms of fantasing about being in bed with him.
Yes, I agree that Craig isn't good looking enough in my book to be Fleming's Bond. But then others lacked a certain something that Craig has in spades, so there you go. The tide really is shifting, on the basis that women are now a stronger cultural force and what they say carries weight. Mind you, it was Cubby's wife who talked up Connery's hiring for Dr No, so maybe it was ever thus.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Roger Moore was a great admirer of Stewart Granger when he was an aspiring actor. His first experience was as an extra in the film Caesar and Cleopatra (1945), in which Granger had a starring role. Apparently, when they met on the set of The Wild Geese they greeted each other with a big bear hug. Granger had heard of Moore's admiration of him saying, "I'm flattered, the guy must be an idiot - but he's still my buddy."
for me any dissonance is centred upon his lack of class and gravitas.However as others have said he has other qualities in spades.
As well as handsome he
(Bond) is also described as 'tough looking' which nobody could accuse Brosnan off.
was trying to come up with Bond's appearance. He looked up to him a lot and he was also an agent during the war. He probably added the scar because he may have seen it on one of the many agents or commandos he had known. He described Bond looking like Carmichael because there was a minor resemblance with Peter, and Carmichael's appearance was well known in the media then. Yes, actors like Brosnan or Moore would be considered handsome from a photogenic view and in general by most audiences, but the idea of them giving off a vibe of being dangerous can be very subjective. It's another reason I think Fleming gave Bond the scar.
"He was good-looking in a dark, rather cruel way, and a scar showed
whitely down his left cheek." - from TSWLM. Now I could describe Brosnan
or Moore or as good looking, but I would not say in a dark, cruel way. I would not have a problem describing Connery or Dalton or even Craig as such (except Craig's light hair scews the result some what). All the actors could always try and act in a dark, cruel manner - but appearing that way just standing in a scene is something else. Even Lazenby could probably pass for seeming a bit threatening, but not as much too me as the above three. My problem with Moore was he just never did come across that way unless he showed it in his behaviour. I think he did a good job in the role as far as the type of films he was given, I just thought they made the character too lightweight with the obsessive humor. However, the audience seemed to have preferred that at the time given the box office success of his films. Yes, when it comes to Fleming's Bond, Craig is definitely the actor who is the least handsome and the least to resemble the Bond in the novels, but I could still see him as a youth at Eton. However, I keep in mind that Fleming gave Bond that background, but he was kicked out for his womanizing and set to Fettes. When I think of the actors who have played Bond, I can imagine that happening to all of them save for Moore and Connery. I can't imagine Moore misbehaving, and Connery just never looked to me like the type you would see walking around in a top hat (though getting kicked out of a regular school I could imagine!).
I disagree about Brosnan and indeed found him dangerous looking in some of his earlier films like Noble House (a mini-series) in which he was a Taipan, The Deceivers and most especially as the Russian assassin in The Fourth Protocol, where he is much more boyish looking than he ever did as Bond, but paradoxically also much more dangerous in demeanor. Had EON decided with doing the "Bond as thug" direction much earlier, I think Brosnan could have pulled it off.
Even a older Brosnan could play a man who looks dangerous. When watching Taylor of Panama he puts on the charm, but at times, seem outright evil, heck, my GF at the time was sure Bronson character was going to rape Jamie Lee Curtis character TWICE in that movie when we watched it (in the water bit and when he grabs her from behind), and she figured he was going to put a bullet in Rushes head to cover his tracks at the end.
I don't have a doubt in my head about Brosnan pulling off every scene in the last three movies. Perhaps that's part of my problem with Craig, too. I really feel like PB got the shaft from EON. "Here you go Pierce, here's a great script to start you off with, and here's three mediocre scripts in which you will be getting funnier and and less serious with each one." and then "Oh Pierce, no need to prep for a 5th, audiences are sick of your portrayal and want a more serious, darker Bond." Meanwhile Craig is touted as the greatest Bond ever while playing every scene like Hayden Christiansen in Star Wars.
Brosnan was held back by his scripts, and Craig is being made by them.
What's the word I'm looking for...oh yes: bullsh*t!
Craig is acknowledged by fellow actors as one of the best of his generation. Besides, QoS is not exactly a fan favourite. If you don't like Craig, fine! Just don't try to slag him off with bad arguments.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Haha, there is no standard for good taste these days :007)
(in seriousness, If we all liked the same things, life would be boring)
You don't think that the huge differences in EON's creative mandates from before and after the reboot affected how the resident actor delivered their roles and the quality of their acting? It seems like the premise behind your response is based on a bad argument and pretty naive.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Someone of Connery's ilk would not have even been admitted if that was their attitude. The young boys who went to that school during Fleming's time came from the type of families that dressed formally on a regular basis. They came from wealthy families and the aristocracy. I conversed with an elderly Etonian years ago and queried him about the uniform. He and his classmates were proud to wear it at the time because what it represented to them, and of course it always made them look damn good in photos!
Not letting him know I was actually thinking about Bond at Eton when I talked to him, I asked him if knew of any boys who had gotten into enough trouble to be expelled. He said that a few would came close, but usually they were punished in other ways. He said there was a story about how Harold McMillan had been expelled for having gay sex, but the real story had to do with McMillan's mother getting some dirt that he was going to be sexually abused so she decided to get him out.
So as one can see, the boys going to Eton at that time displayed a certain attitude from their backgrounds and class. Not wanting to wear their school uniform would not have even been considered.
My point wasn't that Brosnan could not be convincing at acting as a cruel man. It was that from purely a photogenic view he doesn't not come across to me personally as a dangerous, cruel character anymore than Moore does. He seems a bit more threatening looking than Moore, but not by a lot, because their model good looks betray that threat. That's why I rank Brosnan and Moore and even Lazenby close together for that reason. Moore being the least cruel looking of any of the actors, followed by Brosnan then Lazenby.
As I've mentioned in this thread and others, there were huge changes in the creative mandate in DC's films, particularly CR. I'm curious how it would have turned out without Haggis helping set the tone for the reboot and more so, how DC would have fared without a reboot, being forced to do a "best of Bond" delivery. Depending on which creative muse is tickling Barbara Brocolli at any time, we could one day easily see DC para-surfing on a tsunami.
I don't remember much about the behind-the-scene buzz with QoS or if there are official QoS writing credits for him, but if he was heavily involved in the script then it was a good thing and it shows. I for one liked how un-Bond that movie was and would have appreciated DC for this creative change. However, it's interesting how QoS is so disregarded by many DC fans and what it means if he was heavily involved creatively, is that for these fans he shouldn't have been
We can assume with much certainty that the "Etonian" traits of Bond is directly from Fleming's own experiences. As such, Fleming was a rebel and cad, but firmly still part of the establishment and because of those social disctinctions this is why I think he first objected to the casting of Connery because IMO, Connery lacked the public school qualities that Fleming identified with; furthermore, it would have been inconceivable for Fleming to "see" Connery in or out of character as a fellow Etonian, colleague in Whitehall, as part of the social elite, or even the some of the poseur jet set of his circle. Nonetheless, I think Fleming eventually found that Connery suited the racy playboy, sexual/social predator aspect of Bond, despite the fundamental and core differences in character. Since Fleming considered much of Bond to be un-British, I think he similarly saw Connery that way and perhaps identified him with the popular image of the liberated and virile American male.
Yes - we know... You don't like Craig, you don't like Skyfall. Other people's arguments are stupid, naive etc.
Dude, get over it...
Brozzer can do good stuff - but has been hamstrung by his time on TV doing stuff like Remington Steele, his acting can come across as too generic, too TV movie of the week at times. It's like comparing the writing in a magazine article with that in a quality novel - it may be very good but it is of its type, it cuts corners and simplifies compared to the depth of a novel.
But sometimes that is okay anyway. He had a narcissistic qualithy that yes, could hold him back, but also worked on some scenes, as there is a narcissistic quality to film Bond, and I would say it's key to the flare of the James Bond Theme. As with a pop star like David Bowie or the Beatles, sometimes it really is all about looking good if you want to be iconic.
Craig can be a good actor but he's not flawless and struggles with the one-liners at times. Actually, he can't do them at all because he can't do that thing of relating to the audience in that nudge nudge way. His acting has more depth, but less range. The bit when he enters the room in CR and freezes on seeing the broken glass, thinking Vesper has topped herself, is one bit that should be great but he just can't pull it off imo. And he mumbles in the first film. And he can't hack corny lines, because he is an actor grounded in reality, so he can't pull it off so well.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
No, there are very good arguments from a spectrum of opinions on this board. It's the occasional one like yours that make you look stupid. Why? You lambast someone else's argument as being weak without offering even a reasonable response. Stupid is as stupid does and you "does." 8-) Is your thinking broad enough to accept that others have different opinions from yours with possibly valid reasons? It's you who needs to get over that fact.
If one doesn't like Craig, perfectly fine with me! Just don't blame the script, don't call him a bad actor, don't come up with false reasons. Sometimes someone simply doesn't do it for you - simple as that...
You seem to be the one trying desperately to prove Craig 'bad' , turning other people's arguments against them.
Arguing with you is a waste of time - so I won't.
Since you'd be in trouble arguing yourself out of a paper bag, go straight to insults, is that it? Who said I didn't like Craig? I haven't bought the t-shirt, but will the Blu-rays do? Why don't you read my posts and see exactly what my qualms are about before making conclusions you aren't certain about. I for one try not to make declarations about anything Bond without being able to explain and back it up with reasonable discussion; can you do that? Craig is a great Bond, a great actor whose non-
Bond movies I've paid to seee, but for all the fluff and accolades some people give him in the role, "he ain't all of that." Get a grip.
I thought the flare was during this one- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_5uI2PX8ng
1: There is a certain level of professional courtesy in those statements that must be accounted for. For the most part, actors don't bad mouth fellow actors because they might have to work along side them sometime and that's a bad foot to start off on.
2. Read the posts man, Brosnan's biggest criticism is the silliness which made its way back into the series under his tenure. That was written in. The biggest plus(to some) in Craig's portrayal is the dark edginess and brooding nature. Also written in.